In an article for The New York Times, contributing opinion writer Peter Beinart noted that during the presidential campaign, journalists frequently examined the impact of the Israeli war in Gaza on Arab and Muslim voters, particularly in Michigan.

The focus is understandable given the electoral significance of Dearborn, a predominantly Arab American city that supported Joe Biden in 2020. However, recent results indicated that Donald Trump outperformed Kamala Harris there by approximately six percentage points.

Beinart argued that focusing solely on the political repercussions of the war on Gaza through the lens of ethnic or religious identity overlooks a crucial aspect. Over the past year, the Israeli brutal treatment of Palestinians — supported by US taxpayer dollars and broadcast across social media — has ignited one of the most significant waves of progressive activism in recent memory.

Many Americans galvanized by their government’s role in Gaza’s devastation have no direct ties to Palestine or "Israel". Similar to the protests against South African apartheid or the Vietnam War, their motivation is not rooted in ethnicity or religion but in a profound sense of moral responsibility.

Outrage overage US support for 'Israel'

Beinart, in his article, highlighted that the outrage over US support for the Israeli actions in Gaza has been especially strong among young Americans and Black communities. Solidarity with Palestinians has surged, as seen in over 100 college campuses where pro-Palestinian encampments were established.

Related News

Biden grants historic clemency, commutes 1,500 sentences, pardons 39

Trump slams US missile policy in Ukraine as 'crazy'

In February, the Council of Bishops of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, a major Black congregation, condemned the war in Gaza as a "mass genocide" and urged the Biden-Harris administration to halt funding for it. Similarly, in June, the NAACP called for an end to US arms shipments to "Israel". According to a CBS News poll from June, while a majority of voters over 65 supported arms sales to "Israel", younger voters, particularly those under 30, overwhelmingly opposed it by more than three to one. Additionally, 75 percent of Black voters favored cutting off weapons to "Israel", compared to 56 percent of white voters.

The author analyzed exit polls from the recent election, showing Kamala Harris’ significant decline in support among young and Black voters compared to Joe Biden’s 2020 performance. Despite being younger than Biden and identifying as Black, Harris saw a notable drop in support from voters under 29, according to polls by CNN, The Washington Post, Fox News, and The Associated Press. Even though she is Black, CNN and The Washington Post indicated she performed slightly worse than Biden among Black voters, with Fox News and The Associated Press showing a more pronounced decline.

Kamala Harris faces decline among young and black voters

While some young and Black voters were likely influenced by dissatisfaction with the economy or possibly attracted to Donald Trump’s stance on immigration, these factors don’t fully explain Harris’ underperformance. Notably, her support remained steady among older, white voters, and she even gained ground among voters over the age of 65.

In Beinart's view, Kamala Harris’ support for the Israeli war in Gaza likely played a role in her loss of support among key Democratic constituents. Despite substantial evidence that many of the party's most loyal voters opposed continuing arms sales to "Israel", the Biden administration persisted, even as Israeli forces expanded their military actions into Lebanon. Harris not only aligned with Biden’s stance but also made statements that alienated pro-Palestinian voters.

This situation provided an opening for Donald Trump. According to the author, his campaign discovered that undecided voters in key swing states were about six times more likely to be influenced by the Gaza war compared to other swing-state voters. Trump capitalized on this by promising to help “the Middle East return to real peace” and criticized former Representative Liz Cheney, with whom Kamala Harris had campaigned, calling her a “radical war hawk.” Similar to Richard Nixon in 1968, who appealed to antiwar voters by promising “an honorable end to the war in Vietnam,” Trump presented himself — albeit insincerely — as the candidate advocating for peace.

For months, commentators within the Palestinian rights movement have been concerned about this very situation. In August, Palestinian American analyst Yousef Munayyer cautioned that “unless Harris takes some steps to break from Biden’s Israel policy, the same issue that helped tank an already vulnerable Joe Biden with his base could put major obstacles in her path to victory.”

Progressive shift: Why the 'Palestine exception' is politically and morally damaging for Democrats

The author argued that individuals deeply committed to Palestinian rights are seldom in positions of influence within Democratic campaigns. For decades, the party has treated the Palestinian struggle for freedom as a taboo subject. Its leaders have become so entrenched in sidelining this issue, despite their professed commitment to human rights, that even in the face of what many scholars have labeled as genocide, Harris chose to align herself with figures like Cheney instead of advocating alongside staunch progressive voices like Representative Rashida Tlaib.

Despite clear evidence to the contrary, Harris’ campaign failed to acknowledge that progressive voters no longer accept the so-called "Palestine exception". The author contended that the only viable path forward for the Democratic Party is to reconcile its policies on "Israel" and Palestine with the broader principles of human equality and international law. In today's political landscape, supporting Palestinian freedom has become a core tenet of progressive values, and continuing to uphold the "Palestine exception" is not only morally indefensible but politically perilous.

"For a long time, Palestinians in Gaza and beyond have been paying for that exception with their lives. Now Americans are paying too. It may cost us our freedom," the author concluded by saying.