A Reasoned Position for Arab and Muslim Americans on the 2024 Elections
Sari Ben Zuhair
October 6, 2024
“Between the bitter option and the comfortable option”
Many sincere Arab and Muslim American organizations and leaders are calling for the support of a third party (Jill Stein/Cornel West) in the upcoming presidential elections, based on a number of considerations, most notably:
1st: The Democratic Party supported and provided political cover for the genocidal war being committed against the Palestinians in Gaza, as well as the extreme escalation of attacks on Palestinians in the rest of the occupied territories, and the massacres in Lebanon. The Biden-Harris administration continued to supply unconditional military and logistical support to Israel, including deadly bombs,intelligence, and support for the Iron Dome.
2nd: There is no action more heinous than the Biden Democratic administration’s support for Israel’s genocidal war on the Palestinians, and now the war on the Lebanese people. Accordingly, there is nothing worse that a Republican administration could do if Trump wins.
3rd: The Republican and Democratic parties are identical in their positions when it comes to foreign policy, especially with regard to the Middle East; hence the necessity of voting for neither of them.
4th: Not voting for candidate Harris, possibly causing the Democratic Party to lose in favor of Republican candidate Trump, will teach both parties a lesson that ignoring the demands and aspirations of the Arab and Islamic community has a high political cost; therefore, the two parties will seriously consider the demands and aspirations of the Arab and Muslim communities in subsequent elections.
5th: Helping the Green Party candidate to gain 5% of the total votes in 2024 will qualify her to receive federal funding, up to $50 million, in the 2028 elections This provides an excellent financial base for the Green Party, allowing the Arab and Muslim communities to influence the 2028 elections outside of the bankrupt two-party system.
In contrast, in a reasoned and non- emotional consideration of the options, the following observations can be made:
-The Biden Democratic administration’s leadership in Western support for Israel’s war in the aftermath of October 7th aligns with the role of the neo-colonial powers’ role in the establishment of Israel. Had the October 7th attack taken place under a Republican, rather than a Democratic administration, the Republican support for Israel’s genocidal war could have been even worse.
– Israel’s massacres and war crimes in Gaza, the rest of Palestine, Lebanon, and the region as a whole are intended to radically redraw the political map of the region, forcing the international community to accept the gruesome outcome. Despite the horror of its crimes, the destruction, and the terrorizing of civilians, Israel has not achieved a political victory, namely changing the political map of the region.
– If Trump wins the elections, Israel will be more able to secure real political victories for Israel through pressure on Arab leaders (Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia) and transform Netanyahu from a war criminal into a national and international hero.
– In fact, there is a big difference in the position of the two parties. While the Biden administration overlooks Israel’s crimes against humanity and continues providing Israel with deadly military support and international political cover, it remains largely committed to maintaining the region’s political status quo.
– The Biden administration has not reversed the previous Trump administration’s policies, and is certainly turning a blind eye to the policies of the far-right Israeli government that have built and expanded settlements; it has tolerated the religious Zionist movement led by Ben Gvir and Smotrich that has encouraged repeated attacks by extremist settlers on Palestinian villages and residents. However, the Biden administration did not initiate any major initiatives and was satisfied with recycling and managing the facts established by the previous Trump administration. It did not take important decisions like those taken by the previous Trump administration, such as moving the embassy to Jerusalem, annexing the Golan Heights, presenting the Kushner project, defunding UNRWA, closing the Palestinian representation office, imposing the Abraham Accords ..etc. The Biden administration made timid, unsuccessful attempts to bring Saudi Arabia to the normalization table. (These attempts failed due to obstacles placed by Netanyahu, who wants to postpone the grand prize and all the achievements in anticipation of a Trump victory.)
As for candidate Kamala Harris, even if she has not dissociated herself from Biden’s reprehensible policies, she has, at least, expressed sympathy for civilian Palestinian victims more forcefully than Biden has; and unlike Trump she has repeatedly, stressed the need to stop the war. Harris also stressed the need not to change the geopolitical map and change the status of the population in Gaza and the need to implement the two-state solution and the right of the Palestinians to self-determination.
– Trump talks about the small size of Israel and that it needs to be expanded; he also uses the term “Palestinian” as an insult to his Democratic opponents and constantly declares that he has his project ready for the region and ensuring stability in it. (From Peace to Prosperity/Kushner, the Abraham Accords, normalization with Saudi Arabia…etc.) Both Trump and his running mate, J.D. Vance, reiterated the Republican position that there should be absolutely no pressure on Israel–that Israel alone has the right to determine its own policies in the region; and that the US administration should support Netanyahu’s Israel, whatever its endeavors. Vance recently stated that the US administration should not stand in the way of Israel carrying out a strike to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities.
– It is worth noting that the positions of the Republican and Democratic parties differ greatly in foreign policy, as reflected in the positions on Russia/Ukraine, competition with China, NATO, and other major international issues. U. S. policies on Israel are largely determined by Congress, which is, in turn, subject to the dominance of the Israel lobby. The lobby, of course, has a huge influence on the election campaigns of candidates of both parties.
– The American political system has long been dominated by the two major parties, and it is heading towards bankruptcy. It gives pressure groups and political bribery an enormous influence over political outcomes. Trying to change this political system is a long-term process that requires working from within and building new and strong alliances with different political interests and minority groups. Disconnecting from this system for a long time in the hope of building a new force will greatly diminish the role of the Arab and Muslim community in the U.S. at a time when such a role is crucially important. More than ever, Arab and Muslim Americans need to be politically active to defend their rights domestically and advocate for sorely needed changes in policies in the Arab region. In contrast, the Israel lobby is very successful in exploiting the two-party system from within and has achieved tremendous gains for Israel.
– The number of votes counted in 2020 was about 155 million votes (out of a population of about 330 million). The Green Party would have needed about 7.7 million votes to achieve 5% of the votes. However, the Green Party obtained 3.1 million votes in the 2020 elections. Can Arabs and Muslims secure 4.5 million votes or more that would allow the Greens to reach their goal of 5% of votes cast in 2024? How likely would that be. given that Arabs and Muslims participate at rates lower than the average participation of Americans in general (47% according to the last elections.) Furthermore, Arab and Muslim Americans who are against voting for either of the two major parties are divided into three groups– a group that supports the Green Party represented by Jill Stein, another that supports Cornel West (whose presence on election ballots is limited to a few states), and a significant group that simply are not going to vote.
– The most important and influential Arab American movement in the current presidential elections is the Uncommitted Movement; it has had very significant influence in swing states, especially Michigan. It recently made an important political decision not to support any third party in these elections. Although it was founded in the bosom of the Democratic Party, it has decided not to endorse the Harris-Walz campaign, but it emphasizes standing strongly against the election of Trump, saying that it would be a grave mistake to vote for a third party. This leaves the door wide open for Arab and Muslim Americans, and their supporters, to vote, without guilt–for the lesser of two evils, effectively in favor of Harris-Walz, and avoiding the grave dangers of a Trump administration.
Given the above, the following question present themselves:
– On the domestic level, can Arab and Muslim Americans start a grassroots political movement aimed at influencing future elections and the American political system in general without strong alliances with other minorities, most notably African Americans, Latinos, and Asian Americans? These minorities will view calls to boycott the Harris-Walz campaign as something that could lead to a far-right victory that is ominous for their communities. It could lead to the failure of the first woman from an African-American/Indian minority to run for the presidency.
– Also, is it logical for Arab and Muslim Americans to contribute to Trump’s rise to power, when he is the one who is stirring up Islamophobia campaigns, who has promised to silence Arab and Muslim voices, and to suppress all protests against Israel, especially those in universities, and to deport non-American students if they participate in such activities?
– On the foreign policy level, can Arab Americans and Muslims help their Palestinian and Lebanese brothers and sisters, and the people of the region as a whole, by adopting an emotionally-driven stance that ignores the declared positions of the two major parties? Alternatively, does the situation in Gaza and the region necessitate a well-considered and pragmatic approach, one that carefully evaluates the potential political consequences of a Trump presidency? Can we afford a Trump presidency that is fully in line with the objectives that Netanyahu aims to realize beyond the genocide? Knowledgeable observers all over the world see that Netanyahu’s intention is to bide time until Trump’s assumption of the U.S. presidency. The goal is to annex all of the Palestinian territories, and to relocate Palestinians from the West Bank to Jordan and those from Gaza to Egypt—with the financial backing of the oil rich Arab Gulf states.
Voting for a third party may appear to be logical, principled, and agreeable, resonating with the prevailing sentiment, but it may be an erroneous decision. This choice could inadvertently increase the chances of Trump’s return to the White House; and this would undermine the accomplishments of the Arab and Muslim American communities in the United States, while also jeopardizing the future of the Palestinians, and undermining the region’s overall stability.
