The pro-Palestinian factions that rallied opposition against the inefficacious Joe Biden and Kamala Harris in the 2024 elections remain unrepentant, despite rising concerns that they undermined the Democratic ticket. This appears particularly problematic in the aftermath of President Trump’s unexpected proposal to assume control over the strife-ridden Gaza Strip. The President’s comments have caught Washington’s elite off guard, inviting fresh waves of censure. The focal point, however, is the added pressure these advocacy groups stacked on Biden and Harris during the campaign trail due to contentious Israeli-Palestinian tensions. Oddly enough, Trump’s stance on the Middle East wasn’t exactly pro-Palestinian either.
Layla Elabed, a co-chair of the Uncommitted National Movement, an entity abstaining from endorsing any candidates in 2024, expressed her mournful, angered, and fear-laden response to Trump’s Tuesday comments. These were inclusive of his belief that Palestinians have no other choice but to relocate. Yet, she was quick to hold both parties accountable. Harris, in her apathetic approach towards Michigan families tragically affected by US-backed bombings, created a chasm of mistrust, one that Trump adeptly filled with deception during his visit to Dearborn. Therefore, while Trump’s calls for forcible removal of a group of people are horrendous, Elabed spots the Democrats’ missed opportunity to present themselves as a credible alternative.
A former Harris aide’s candid reaction to Elabed’s remarks—attributed to ‘unserious people wanting to dodge responsibility’—only fuels the discord. The pro-Palestinian activists’ strategy, it’s believed, got Trump elected while ironically being uncommitted to his nomination. Their strategy significantly impaired the only tangible opposition to Trump’s administration.
Adam Jentleson, former Democratic leadership aide, condemned the uncommitted movement leaders for an ill-devised strategy that eventually led to Trump’s election, considering their lack of support for the Democrats to be a direct assist to Trump. According to him, the probable outcome of Trump’s victory and ensuing threats to annex Gaza were obvious, yet the uncommitted chose to overlook it. Their ill-thought strategy has now left a heavy burden on the misled public.
Although it is challenging to estimate precisely how influential the movement’s role was in shaping the 2024 election’s outcome, there is some indication that the strident criticism by advocates tilted Democratic-leaning voters away from Harris. The populace of Dearborn, Michigan—a city with the largest Arab American demographic—voted for Trump by a narrow margin, which was a stark difference from the robust support for Biden four years prior.
Numerous constituents of the Uncommitted National Movement, while finding Trump’s policies causing damage to Palestinian rights, also criticized the somewhat pedantic nature of the Abandon Harris group, claiming its sole aim as sabotaging the Democrats’ chances in the 2024 elections.
The Democratic primary in March 2024 witnessed around 100,000 Michigan residents expressing their neutrality, reflecting their intend to cast a vote of no confidence to the then-president. This unambiguous rebuke from citizens came with a clear demand: to end U.S. support to Israeli aggression in Gaza.
Uncommitted Grassroots member Maamoun Slayhi vociferously condemned Trump’s plan to take over Gaza, emphasizing how such a decision by the U.S. government was extremely unsuitable given the delicate context. Unrepentant about his choice of remaining uncommitted, Slayhi compared Harris and Trump as two sides of the same tarnished coin. Slayhi’s comments underline a disillusionment with the supposed ‘broken’ American political system, which in his opinion, overlooks Palestinian concerns irrespective of party lines.
The warnings raised by the pro-Palestinian groups seemingly fell on deaf ears. An anonymous official lamented the lack of acknowledgment of their genuine fears and emergencies. Despite recurring warnings about Trump’s intentions relating to Gaza, they were largely ignored.
Conversely, internal rifts within the Harris campaign were palpable, centered around divergent views on calibrating a more forceful stance towards the Gaza issue. Majority of responses to mass volunteer emails or fundraising requests that couldn’t dodge addressing Gaza were skillfully sidestepped, illustrating their reluctance to engage in any substantial dialogs on the critical issue.
Salima Suswell, the CEO of the Black Muslim Leadership Council, criticized Trump’s remarks as a predictable outcome for many who campaigned against him as an international danger. Despite Trump’s claims of being a pacifist, a chasm stood between his promises and the actual efforts to protect Palestinian lives. Yet the likes of Biden and Harris failed dismally to capitalize on their opportunity to offer a more solid, sensible, and empathetic alternative to the electorate.