[[link removed]]

PALESTINIANS WILL SPEAK WHETHER DEMOCRATS WANT THEM TO OR NOT  
[[link removed]]


 

Y.L. Al-Sheikh
August 29, 2024
The Nation
[[link removed]]


*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ The party may have successfully prevented Palestinians from
addressing the DNC. But it cannot hold back the tide forever. _

Anti-war demonstrators march near the United Center where the
Democratic National Convention s taking place on August 21, 2024, in
Chicago., Scott Olson / Getty Images

 

Despite months of planning, intensive organizing, and a set of clear
demands, the 2024 Democratic National Convention was an undeniable
disappointment for the Uncommitted National Movement. The group’s
demand for an arms embargo against Israel remains elusive at best, and
the Democratic platform makes only passing references to Palestinian
statehood and our rights to dignity and security. Perhaps most
gallingly, the DNC refused
[[link removed]] the
Uncommitted movement’s request to allow a Palestinian American to
speak to the convention for just two minutes.

Not everything was a bust, however. Uncommitted secured
[[link removed]] the
first-ever panel on Palestinian human rights in the DNC’s history,
and the demand for a speaker united a variety of interest groups, from
organized labor to Black and left-wing Jewish groups, behind it.

Beyond that, the dynamics that were revealed by the events in
Chicago—both the major setbacks and the minor victories— are quite
useful for those of us who want to look to the future.

It is important to get some key things about the Uncommitted movement
and its approach to the convention straight.

First and foremost, while the fight over a convention speaker
attracted the most attention, an arms embargo remains
[[link removed]] the
central demand of the Uncommitted movement and of many
Palestinian-American and Arab-American voters. As many have pointed
out [[link removed]], it is not
tenable to say that you are for a ceasefire while also providing the
very means for the fire. And in light of a blockade on Gaza which
illegally impedes the delivery of food and medicine to civilians,
military assistance to Israel almost certainly violates
[[link removed]] US
and international humanitarian law.

Opposition to this flow of weapons is not a fringe view. A CBS poll
from June found
[[link removed]] that 61
percent of all Americans, including 77 percent of Democrats, oppose
sending military aid to Israel right now, and recent polls conducted
by YouGov and the Institute for Middle East Understanding
[[link removed]] show
that an arms embargo and permanent ceasefire could enthuse key swing-
state voters. While it would be incorrect to say that such a policy
shift would be uncontroversial, it’s clear that there is a real and
growing bloc of Americans who sympathize with the Palestinian plight.
Even more than that, they are getting organized.

Second, the request for a speaking slot on the stage of the convention
was neither a new demand nor a controversial one. It was submitted a
month and a half ago
[[link removed]].
Uncommitted’s initial request was to give time to Dr. Tanya
Haj-Hassan, an intensive care doctor who bore witness to Israel’s
genocidal carnage
[[link removed]] while
volunteering at Gaza’s Al-Aqsa Martyrs Hospital. In the end, the
movement relaxed its request and asked for a Palestinian-American from
their list of options to speak on the pain of Palestinians in the war.
Despite the symbolic, conservative nature of this request, Democrats
still refused—even though they allowed Rachel Goldberg and Jon
Polin, the parents of an Israeli American hostage, to speak (something
that Uncommitted publicly supported
[[link removed]]).

So where does this leave Uncommitted—and, for that matter, the
Democratic Party?

On the one hand, the DNC’s callous treatment of Uncommitted showed
just how deep the antipathy toward Palestinians runs within the upper
echelons of the party—and reflected the Harris campaign’s
calculation that it will pay a very limited political price, if any,
for antagonizing the movement. Playing by the rules didn’t work out
like some insisted it would because, while the cause of Palestinian
liberation is more popular than ever, the Democratic leadership seems
to think it’s still 1982. Failure to compel changes by working
“within the system” over the last six months or so will no doubt
give fuel to those who are looking for reasons to reinforce their
cynicism about electoral politics and the Democratic Party as a
vehicle for change.

On the other hand, if leading Democrats had intended to suppress
virtually all talk of Palestine—and to erase Palestinians themselves
from the conversation— they failed. After being denied a speaking
slot, Uncommitted’s leadership launched into action and conducted a
sit-in
[[link removed]] outside
of the convention with the hope of compelling a reversal. The demand
for a speaker garnered the support of various organizations and
leading members of the party, from the United Auto Workers
[[link removed]] and Bend the Arc to
every member of the Squad. By the final day of the convention, support
was also coming in from some of the relatives
[[link removed]] of Israeli
hostages.

While support for a simple two-minute speech is by no means
translatable into support for an arms embargo, it is clear that
Democrats miscalculated if they assumed that denying Palestinians a
basic right to be heard would go without uproar. By making the
decision to put talented State Representative Ruwa Romman (who, full
disclosure, is a friend of mine) at the forefront, with a speech that
primarily focused on Palestinian suffering and the need to enforce US
law toward “friend and foe alike,” Uncommitted showed the party to
be not only intransigent but also wildly irrational.

These miscalculations drew numerous comparisons
[[link removed]] to
the 1964 Democratic National Convention’s refusal to listen to the
Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party and its leaders as they pleaded
for an end to apartheid in the American South. The likes of Fannie Lou
Hamer sought to make members of the Democratic coalition decide if
they were for equality or Jim Crow. Similarly, Uncommitted wants to
make Democrats confront the results of their party’s policy on
Palestine and decide if not another bomb
[[link removed]] will
go to killing civilians or if they will continue to support apartheid
in Palestine.

Is that enough? Of course not—particularly given the urgent need to
end the genocide this minute. Will it change the trajectory of this
election? It’s impossible to say. But it is something that can be
built upon, and various strategies will continue to be used while
navigating this hostile political terrain.

There is a deeper lesson to take from the DNC: that, whether the
Democratic Party likes it or not, the movement for Palestine is
growing stronger and stronger.

Prior to the impromptu sit-in, Ta-Nehisi Coates wrote a moving piece
[[link removed]] in _Vanity
Fair_ on the struggle to make Palestinian liberation matter at the
DNC. Coates ended his piece with a nod to Edward Said, writing that
“the Palestinian permission to narrate
[[link removed]] was
still under consideration.”

While that’s true for the leaders of the Democratic Party, the
broader picture tells a different story. Palestinians are narrating
their suffering and their aspirations no matter how much leading
Democrats would like them to stop, and more of the party’s base is
listening with each passing day.

It’s not just the likes of Rashida Tlaib and Ruwa Romman anymore;
thousands of Arab Americans are more politically engaged than ever
before and organizing around the issue of Palestine. Those who are
familiar with the rhetoric and promises
[[link removed]] of
both Republican and Democratic presidents past won’t be satisfied
with vague references to dignity, security, and Palestinian
self-determination in an acceptance speech, either. It’s time for
the Harris-Walz campaign, and a future Harris-Walz administration, to
prove that it’ll be different.

This is not an issue that will go away, even if Harris does manage to
tamp it down over the next few months. Without an internationally
coordinated campaign for Palestinian self-determination, which will
require nothing less than the enforcement of international law via an
arms embargo and meaningful sanctions on the Israeli state for its
settlement of occupied Palestinian territory, it is unlikely that any
ceasefire in Gaza will actually be permanent. Without an end to the
horrible and oppressive occupation of Palestine, the issue will only
become an even bigger stress test on the party’s credibility than it
is today. And without an end to the apartheid system that suppresses
more than 7 million Palestinians and denies millions more the right to
visit and return to their homeland, there will never be meaningful
peace.

Equal rights, dignity, self-determination—these are words that sound
nice when said the first time, but become hollow if uttered only to
escape having to do anything. Until words are turned into action
[[link removed]],
and until Palestine is free, Palestinians and their allies from all
backgrounds will continue to organize—and there is nothing
Democratic leadership can do about that.

_Y.L. AL-SHEIKH is a Palestinian American writer and organizer active
in the Democratic Socialists of America and in international
solidarity work between Israel/Palestine and the United States._

_Copyright c 2024 THE NATION. Reprinted with permission. May not be
reprinted without permission
[[link removed]].
Distributed by PARS International Corp
[[link removed]]. _

_Founded by abolitionists in 1865, The Nation has chronicled the
breadth and depth of political and cultural life, from the debut of
the telegraph to the rise of Twitter, serving as a critical,
independent, and progressive voice in American journalism._

_Please support progressive journalism. Get a digital subscription
[[link removed]] to
The Nation for just $24.95!_

_Thank you for reading The Nation! _

_We hope you enjoyed the story you just read. It’s just one of many
examples of incisive, deeply-reported journalism we
publish—journalism that shifts the needle on important issues,
uncovers malfeasance and corruption, and uplifts voices and
perspectives that often go unheard in mainstream media. For nearly 160
years, The Nation has spoken truth to power and shone a light on
issues that would otherwise be swept under the rug._

_In a critical election year as well as a time of media austerity,
independent journalism needs your continued support. The best way to
do this is with a recurring donation. This month, we are asking
readers like you who value truth and democracy to step up and support
The Nation with a monthly contribution. We call these monthly donors
Sustainers, a small but mighty group of supporters who ensure our team
of writers, editors, and fact-checkers have the resources they need to
report on breaking news, investigative feature stories that often take
weeks or months to report, and much more._

_There’s a lot to talk about in the coming months, from the
presidential election and Supreme Court battles to the fight for
bodily autonomy. We’ll cover all these issues and more, but this is
only made possible with support from sustaining donors. Donate
today—any amount you can spare each month is appreciated, even just
the price of a cup of coffee._

_The Nation does now bow to the interests of a corporate owner or
advertisers—we answer only to readers like you who make our work
possible. Set up a recurring donation today and ensure we can continue
to hold the powerful accountable._

_Thank you for your generosity._

_Donate $10 monthly to The Nation.
[[link removed]]_

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]
Manage subscription
[[link removed]]
Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]