While it is not certain that the election was swayed because of it, the Democrats unquestionably faced extensive repercussions for not holding Israel accountable. As we look back at the 2024 election landscape, it’s difficult not to consider the profound impact of the Biden administration’s grievously mishandled crisis in Gaza on the Democratic Party’s capability to retain the presidency. With Trump emerging victorious post-election, the effects of this blunder are becoming increasingly apparent.
Looking at the wider picture, Trump successfully tapped into widespread dissatisfaction with the Biden administration across various economic and socio-political sectors. Kamala Harris notably regretted being tied to the baggage of Joe Biden’s image and policies. A fact made even more apparent by Trump’s sweep of the critical battleground states that set the tone for the election—an outcome that remained standing even in the hypothetical situation of losing Michigan and Wisconsin.
Evidently, the situation in Gaza is not the sole answer behind Trump’s significant win. However, it’s glaringly clear that Harris’s inability to object to Biden’s unwavering support for Israel carried a noteworthy political cost, significantly higher than many had anticipated. There was a discernible decline in the degree of support Harris received from Arab Americans—a dip that is her underperformance on a comprehensive level.
Take, for example, the 2020 vote, where Biden secured 82% in the eastern part of Dearborn and an even more substantial 88% in the city’s southernmost areas—locations where majority Arab populations reside. By contrast, in the 2024 election, Harris managed just 23% and 13% in these regions respectively. Such a drastic reduction in Democratic approval over a short four-year span can chiefly be attributed to widespread frustration with the administration’s approach to the issues in Palestine and Lebanon.
In a similar context, Harris struggled to maintain support levels in Paterson, New Jersey—an area where Biden previously received 70% votes. Harris could not even manage to reach a 42% vote share, underscoring how deeply the disappointment among Arab American communities extended, more than just within the boundaries of Michigan.
Despite the simmering resentment at Biden, many speculated that Arab Americans would eventually align their votes with Harris, despite her seeming inability to distinguish herself in the Middle Eastern context. This assumption couldn’t have been more incorrect. It was not a case of voters randomly lashing out; it hinged on specific party politics that were viewed as unacceptable.
Elissa Slotkin, who proposed conditioning aid to Israel while Harris did not, achieved a relatively decent performance. This reinforces the notion that the dissatisfaction was not rooted deep against the Democratic Party as a whole but the particular type of politics they employed. Demonstrably, Rashida Tlaib, a Palestinian American, comfortably secured her fourth term with an impressive 62% of the vote in Dearborn.
Long gone are the days when the Arab American vote was considered a surety, especially as they experience the dichotomy between what the Democratic Party says and how it behaves concerning Palestine and Arab lives in general. The question becomes what could the Democrats have done differently? There were numerous opportunities for initiatives to reconcile with Arab Americans.
Despite the snub, the Uncommitted National Movement tried to broker peace with Harris, inviting her to engage with their members and meet with the families of Palestinian and Lebanese victims of Israeli aggression. Again, Harris declined. While it’s doubtful these proposals would have altered the election outcome since the issues of Palestine and Gaza weren’t decisive factors, they could have strengthened her coalition during a time when it was crucial.
By taking advantage of these opportunities, Harris could have shown a willingness to tread a different path from Biden. It could have indicated her independence from her increasingly unpopular boss and given disillusioned voters of all backgrounds a reason to rally around her. Further, it would have been a positive gesture towards a community that has felt ignored and overlooked.
However, Harris made it clear on numerous occasions that she would not deviate from Biden’s stance. Yet, the time to scrutinize these missteps will soon be over. With the looming exit of Biden and Harris, Trump provides signals of an even more pro-Israel and anti-Palestinian stance than his predecessor.
It seems that a second Trump presidency will be dominated by figures like Mike Huckabee and Elise Stefanik, renowned for their strong pro-Israel and anti-Palestinian views. Huckabee denies the existence of Palestinians, and Stefanik is known for her efforts to suppress anti-Zionist activism on university campuses. Both are in favor of the unilateral annexation of the remainder of occupied Palestine.
While this impending annexation might not quash the Palestinian national consciousness, it does signal the extreme anti-Palestinian sentiment rooted in the Republican Party and conservative politics at large. This poses a critical challenge for those standing for Palestinian liberation to ensure that it remains a global issue and its damaging effects are politically costly.
Regardless of the coming four years’ outcomes, Palestine’s erasure is neither lasting nor a consignment to the annals of forgotten history. Palestine has endured seventy-six years of struggle, outlasting multiple presidencies, from Reagan to the double stint of Trump. Attempts jointly made by these presidents and Israel to eradicate Palestine were unsuccessful.
Their essence and resistance are very much alive, testifying to the resilience and tenacity of the Palestinian people. Their story is not over; instead, it motivates the renewed fight for their liberation, reaffirming the political truth that no nation, oppressor, or regime can force a people to disappear.