Above photo: Kamala Harris and Tim Walz at their campaign kickoff rally in Philadelphia, PA on August 6, 2024. Twitter/@KamalaHarris.
The question of how Palestine activists should engage in electoral politics has split the movement.
But the 2024 election season should clarify why they are not an effective strategy for building power.
Seldom have causes defined the Left within the United States like the fight for Palestinian liberation. Palestine sits at the intersection of myriad struggles ranging from anti-imperialism, anti-colonialism, anti-racism, LGBTQ+ liberation, labor justice, environmental justice, and more. This struggle, one that has been waged globally for decades, and in the United States, has remained a contentious issue across the political spectrum – an issue plagued with accusations of antisemitism, Islamophobia, and deeply ingrained chauvinism. The Left has not been spared amid that contention.
This is far from surprising. After all, the Left in the United States is far from monolithic, nor are those who consider themselves a part of it immune from the upholding of colonial rhetoric and belief systems, analytical shortcomings, chauvinism – the list goes on. This is part of what has made the Palestinian liberation struggle such a clarifying one, as to be in principled solidarity with Palestinians is to challenge the very nature of the world system we exist in, in a way that forces us to reexamine our belief systems, our priorities, and more.
It is also a struggle that has helped challenge and clarify the strategies and tactics that the Left adopts. The cause of Palestinian liberation has forced reevaluations of core organizing assumptions and power-building models as well as what what real, principled solidarity looks like. This reevaluation (and the struggle of some on the Left to avoid them outright), has often resulted in intense friction, what some may describe as infighting, and ultimately division among cohorts who are at least ostensibly on the Left.
And perhaps the strategic flashpoint that has arisen more than any other is what role, if any, electoral political struggle plays in the broader struggle for Palestinian liberation. This divide has, especially in recent months, exposed itself in myriad ways that continue to divide those who claim to be on the Left.
The Left’s Priority On Deeply Imperfect Progressives
The 2024 primary election cycle has not been without its fair share of hotly contested races, and the debate over the role of electoralism in Left organizing has been central. This was seen in local races, such as Jamaal Bowman’s effort to hold onto his seat in New York, as well, of course, in the national race between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. In both cases, rather than providing a pathway to change and liberation, the prioritization of electoral efforts has been generally ineffectual with oftentimes little to show beyond hollow statements and deeply imperfect “solutions.”
In New York’s 16th Congressional District, Jamaal Bowman, the former educator turned incumbent Congressional “Squad” member, faced off against AIPAC-bankrolled challenger George Latimer in what became the single most expensive U.S. House primary in U.S. history.
Within this race the question of how Left organizations should engage in electoral politics came to a head at one rally in the Bronx. Just days before the election, a counter-protest aimed at speakers Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez sparked serious discussions around Palestine, and how we hold political leaders accountable even when they claim to be on the side of the Palestinian people.
Sanders’s and Ocasio-Cortez’s participation in the rally was met by some with excitement, but also, particularly those within the orbit and membership of New York City’s Within Our Lifetime (WOL), a pro-Palestine organization that has been a major player in the Palestinian solidarity movement, with criticism and condemnation. A WOL counter-protest calling to “Flood the Bronx for Gaza” was called to show support for Palestine and hold the same “progressive” politicians who came out to support Rep. Bowman accountable.
The resulting back and forth between WOL and supporters, and others on the U.S. Left, including some representing organizations like the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), led to a flashpoint, an ugly one at times, that ranged from principled argumentation to smears levied at WOL organizers as they made a very simple demand that Rep. Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Sanders cease being campaign surrogates for Joe Biden, a key architect of the very same genocide they have claimed to oppose on many an occasion.
Those criticizing WOL felt years of intensive campaign work were at risk of going up in smoke (and did) and the idea of criticizing these elected officials seemed ludicrous. Why critique only days before the election, when WOL could simply wait for the results, hope that Bowman wins, and then make their move? WOL argued, that they could not have timed their event at a more strategic time, as this was the moment to leverage their potential political support in exchange for specific demands on Democratic party figures. If there was ever a time for these imperfect actors to cave under pressure, this was it, and WOL was seizing it.
This analysis was lost on many supporters, who chose to close rank and defend these elected officials, citing the prospect of a loss of political power within the halls of Congress – power that had been hard fought which was even after years of intensive work very minimal and hardly consistently applied. In the end, electorally-focused Left organizers were in many instances left scratching their heads, and in condemning WOL, were only further isolated from those leading the very cause so many of them had spent months claiming to care deeply about.
In this case, electoral power and “strategy” trumped principled solidarity with the movement, and in a moment we saw the limitations of the very strategy itself, as well as the cold willingness to sideline pressuring imperfect actors for the sake of short-term victories that had no guarantee of bearing fruit.
Kamala Harris And DNC: An Anti-Palestinian Affair
Fast forward only a few months, and we saw another flashpoint: the Democratic National Convention. This one came to fruition after months of bickering among cohorts similar to WOL and electorally focused counterparts who had begun in their own ways defending and supporting the Harris campaign. The reasoning for this support was not monolithic, but could largely be attributed to two factors.
The first reason some on the Left came to support Kamala Harris was the result of a debate around tactical considerations regarding the hypothetical differences between the Harris and Trump administrations. The conclusion some came to was that organizing conditions may be better with a Harris presidency, and perhaps safer for marginalized communities, Palestinians included (this being even as Harris, herself an outspoken supporter of Zionism, continued to be a key player in an administration that to this point has sent over 500 arms shipments to the Zionist entity since October 7th).
The second, and one that arguably overlaps to a degree with the first, amounts to the projection of potential positions and movement onto a candidate running a campaign largely using a “blank slate” marketing strategy that lets those observing her assume her positions even if their assumptions are ultimately incorrect.
The question of Harris and the efficacy of harm reduction through voting is deserving of another piece entirely, but the argument nonetheless led to a split between different actors, organizations, and intraorganizational factions as the Palestine movement collectively approached the Democratic National Convention. Red flags, like Harris releasing a statement condemning pro-Palestine protestors in D.C., or her historic vocal support for the Zionist project, were ever-present in the lead-up to the convention, but there was a vain hope among many that she may be pressured to shift her position on Palestine given the possible electoral consequences of staying course. Many hoped that she may have seen the efforts of the Uncommitted Campaign, which had successfully earned delegates through their nationwide efforts, alongside the widespread national protest, positive polling around a ceasefire, and the abysmal response to Biden’s actions toward Gaza, and learned from it all. Sadly, she did not.
The DNC itself made the Democratic Party’s position clear throughout the week, with the elevation of family members of an American-Israeli hostage given front-and-center speaking time and the associated refusal to elevate a Palestinian speaker, the total shutting out of the Uncommitted Delegates, and even the removal of access and accommodations to at least one popular internet streamer who had spent time interviewing Uncommitted delegates and admonishing the party over its consistent anti-Palestinian efforts.
Kamala Harris’ speech, the coup de grâce of this reality, touched on Palestine only to offer hollow calls for a ceasefire (only after a call to release Israeli hostages) before Harris recommitted her full-throated support for the Gaza onslaught – including the continuation of arms shipments. She finished off this brief segment with a note of Israeli atrocity propaganda, which she touted as truth, and as reasoning for her ironclad support of colonialism and genocide.
Once again, those who had chosen to work to bring change from within the system hit a wall and were forced to face the limitations of the inside electoral strategy for bringing change to conditions in Palestine.
That wall, one present within efforts to pressure and extract wins from Harris, the “Squad”, and the system at large, is the problem. This wall is not a bug, but a feature – a defensive element of a system hellbent on avoiding change of any real kind beyond a narrow threshold. It presents a limitation to organizers who see themselves as being able to build power and make large-scale structural changes through existing institutions and bodies.
This is also a reality that should lead those on the Left to question of efficacy of electoral politics as a strategy for building power.
It is no surprise then that Palestine has been the issue to make clear the limitations of such actors and the system they operate in – Palestine represents the tip of the spear of anti-imperialist struggle and is a direct challenge to U.S. interests at home and abroad. The Palestinian liberation struggle has been made into a political hot potato in a system that incentivizes elected officials to view their options based on the calculation of short-term electoral viability. Principled solidarity ultimately becomes antagonistic to the goal of reelection, and even antagonistic to the coalition-building efforts and political maneuvering so many elected officials commit to with their counterparts, “progressive” and otherwise – efforts that allow them to bring home wins to their districts.
The reality is that even the most well-meaning “progressives,” by merit of their position within the imperial core, ultimately work toward self-interest and the interests of the imperialist, colonial entity their represent. This often takes the form of “political pragmatism” in an effort to maintain their place of power and authority within that oppressive system. But it is oppression that is replicated nonetheless.
Power Building Alternatives
That is not to say electoral struggle has no value. While the “power” that is built through electoral victories oftentimes appears more hypothetical than actual concessions or wins principled socialist organizers and organizations have extracted from their elected officials, there is no doubt that on a local level electoral efforts can have real, immediate, and positive effects. And regardless of material victories, electoral efforts also give organizers a key arena within which they can sharpen contradictions – showing the real shortcomings of a system so many legitimately see as a means for change and improvement. Win or lose, participation in electoral endeavors gives principled organizers a chance to pull the curtain down and show their communities the wall as it exists, and the deep imperfection of even the most “progressive” political leaders.
In regards to Palestine, that is where the true power lies. Principled organizers, by standing arm in arm with the liberation struggle, are exposing the imperialist beast that is the U.S. for all to see as our government continues to bear its fangs to squash dissent and facilitate the murder and suffering of millions for all to see. But the limitations of an electoral strategy should be clear to all by this point, and ultimately it is a question of what our goals are foe engaging in it. The liberation of Palestine, and our collective liberation, will not be achieved in the halls of Congress – it is simply impossible to attain liberation through an institution that is built on genocide, colonialism, white supremacy, and imperialism, but the failures of such an institution that are brought to the forefront through organizers dedicated to showing its real nature will advance the movement, and in the process build real power as we organize for an alternative to our status quo.
Organizers across the U.S. have been committing to actions that are bringing us closer to our goals, in spite of these electoral mishaps. Countless organizations and individuals have taken up boycott campaigns in their communities, building ties with those around them as they push to end the sale of Israeli products – creating “Apartheid Free Zones” in the places they call home. Some have taken to efforts that pressure the companies complicit in the production and supply of arms to the Israeli military, like that of the Palestinian Youth Movement’s Mask off Maersk campaign, or efforts by BDS Boston and other organizers to rid Cambridge of a local Elbit facility. Others have also taken to targeted divestment campaigns against BDS targets like Chevron. This has been bolstered by the efforts of countless rank-and-file union members and organizers who are working to pass BDS resolutions and other pro-Palestine efforts and bring the power of organized labor onto the side of Palestinians. The examples are countless.
Kamala Harris, Jamaal Bowman, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, Bernie Sanders… these people will not be the leaders in any liberation struggle. They are at best occasional, convenient allies and tools, and at worst oppositional to the very causes we cherish and champion. It is on us to stop dying on the hill of coming to their defense and commit to the strategy and tactics that will move us forward.