- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
Near midnight last week, Democratic delegates with the Uncommitted movement sat in protest outside Chicago’s United Center. Elected by hundreds of thousands of primary voters who oppose President Joe Biden’s response to the war in Gaza, the delegates were sent to the DNC “uncommitted”—not pledged to support any candidate at the convention. Earlier in the week, the group did what they were elected to do by calling for a permanent ceasefire and immediate arms embargo. They also continued a simpler request they’d started making before the convention: a spot for a speaker on the main stage to talk about Palestine.
On Wednesday evening, the DNC and Harris campaign finally told them that no Palestinian American would be allowed to speak from the main stage of the convention. Here was their last ditch effort. They hoped a sit-in—and the Civil Rights history it evoked—would push party leaders to change their minds.
Despite being a group of staunch Democrats working to affect change from within the party, the Harris campaign—and many Democrats—mostly treated Uncommitted and their allies as outsiders ruining a party at the DNC. And, often, it seemed without even understanding what they were saying or where agreement could be had. The result was a four-day convention that managed to find space for seemingly everyone on the main stage except those willing to speak personally about what is happening in Palestine.
You’re right that most Americans don’t care about this and, to the extent they do the pro-Israel group has more resources and have it as a higher political priority. On the other hand the pentagon and state dept definitely see it as a security issue. They see a highly militarized Israel as an asset as a detterent and an insurance policy if things pop off in the ME. This is the conventional wisdom, but it’s far from controversial if it’s the best policy given that Arab forces refuse to fight on the same side as the Israelis, and modern US war stategy calls for using local indigenous forces they prop up. Overall the US will never except not having a strong military presence in the ME (atleast until oil demand drops in the coming decades when renewables become very cheap) and Israel is one of the ways they achieve this.
Edit: for some reason I said far from controversial, but I meant it is controversial.
You may be right, this ME shit is so entangled I can’t make sense of it.
But if I understand you correctly, Gaza is even more fucked politically than what I described?
For now, pretty much unfortunately. Once oil demand drops the ME will be less of a priority for the US, but then will have to contend with the Israel lobby which won’t go down easy.
This stems back to the whole “unsinkable aircraft carrier in the Middle East” rhetoric from back in the 60s. It’s frankly outdated in the modern day, when the US has military bases of its own sprinkled throughout Iraq and Syria, as well as strong alliances with countries like Saudi Arabia.
Israel did not even participate in the fight against ISIS. The idea they’re some useful weapon in the ME is just inaccurate.
For the most part I agree that in the long term Israel has not been super helpful to US interests. The people running our society had their veiws of foriegn policy formed in the 70s and this is the result.
In general they only fight Hamas and Hezbollah, 2 groups that they created with their invasions. The only thing I can think of is their intelligence operations against Iran, but it’s not clear why they need to be the ones to do it.
I think that Israel’s habit of constantly fucking with its neighbors makes it more of a liability to the interests of the US. It leads to more local hostility towards US troops in other regions in the area and attacks on US people and interests both abroad and at home (9/11).
A better approach would be to ally with indigenous democracies and help them maintain stability. First, our allies should be at least mostly compatible with our own national values (not theocracies, monarchies, apartheid states, etc). Secondly, allying with an indigenous nation instead of a bunch of settler colonists is less likely to draw the ire of every common person in the region.