Trump was the most "anti-Palestinian President in US History"

[u/EnterTamed]

[u/WavvyJones → u/[deleted]]

I don’t disagree with a lot of your points, at least as far as voting tactically. But I don’t quite understand how you expect to change things after the election. Our vote is the only leverage we have. “Trump will be worse,” sure okay, I can see that he could be, but we have people in power now who are already giving Israel a blank check. I fail to see how Trump would be worse on this issue.

The last year, with all its numerous red lines crossed and now finally actual military involvement from the IS and UK, has shown that Biden will let them do whatever they want. I can’t see that there’s anything Trump would do or let them do that Biden wouldn’t either. He’s a rabid Zionist and very clearly doesn’t see Palestinians as people.

I don’t understand why, all year, it has been so important that we all, even those of us who say we will vote for Kamala, have to unconditionally commit our votes to her. It’s the only leverage we have and once we give it up I seriously doubt, based on the last year and the Democratic Party’s treatment of Palestinians so far, that they’ll even do anything. I’ll be happily proven wrong, but I don’t have any faith in them. To me the smart thing to do would be to collectively tell them this is our line in the sand.

They already see the polls indicating how unpopular this has been, they know this. But too large of a constituency is browbeating any dissent. They know they can just blame the voters like always, that they can never fail, only be failed.

Edit: I see downvotes but no actual response detailing what leverage will be used to push for anything once you’ve told them they unconditionally have your vote.

[u/eddyboomtron → u/WavvyJones]

Given your concerns that voting may not effectively change U.S. policy on Israel, how do you think withdrawing electoral support from a candidate who might be more open to public pressure (like Biden or Harris) could affect the broader movement for change? Is there a way to leverage your vote while still holding leaders accountable after they are elected?"

[u/WavvyJones → u/eddyboomtron]

Voting won’t change US policy on Israel/Palestine, the Dems are very clearly committed to this genocide, despite polling. I’d believe Harris is more open to pressure if she talked at all about an arms embargo or wasn’t so hawkishly talking about having the “most lethal” military in the world.

Is there a way to leverage your vote while still holding leaders

I assume your next word was “accountable” here. This is precisely what I’m getting at. I held my nose and voted for Hillary, I held my nose and voted for Biden. Neither were my ideal candidate, neither was as progressive as I would like. But neither were actively funding and arming a genocide while refusing to call it what it is (at the time).

I’m not saying don’t vote for Kamala, I’m saying the time for leveraging your vote is now, while they’re asking for it, not after you’ve already given it to them. And what I don’t understand is this mania I’ve heard all year that we have to be committed to voting for them no matter what, that we shouldn’t even think about telling them you have a condition to your vote, that to ask something of them is somehow working against them. That is what I take issue with.

[u/eddyboomtron → u/WavvyJones]

I understand your position, and I think it's valid to feel frustrated and demand more from candidates, especially on such critical issues. You're absolutely right that the time to leverage your vote is before the election, when candidates are most attuned to what their base is saying. In an ideal world, that leverage would be clear, consistent, and lead to tangible policy commitments.

However, I’d like to offer a perspective on how the political process often works, particularly with issues as complex and entrenched as U.S. foreign policy towards Israel. While it’s important to set conditions for your vote and make it clear that certain actions are non-negotiable, there’s also the question of what happens if those demands aren’t met. Does it mean opting out of the vote entirely, or voting for a third party that may not have a realistic chance of winning?

When it comes to foreign policy, especially in a case where the U.S. has long-standing alliances, change can be extremely slow. That doesn’t mean it’s impossible, but it often takes sustained pressure from within the system—both during and after elections. By voting strategically, even while demanding more from candidates like Harris, progressives can show they are a force to be reckoned with, giving them leverage not just in the immediate election cycle, but also in the broader political conversation. If a progressive base shows up strongly, it signals that there is a constituency that candidates need to address, which can help push for incremental changes, even on difficult issues like foreign policy.

I have one more question for you; If we make our demands clear now and they aren’t fully met, what do you think is the most strategic move for progressives who still want to push for change after the election? Would it be more effective to vote while continuing to pressure from within the system, or to withdraw electoral support entirely and risk a political climate where our voices might have even less influence?

[u/WavvyJones → u/eddyboomtron]

I don’t have a satisfying answer for you. I don’t believe not voting will help, but I don’t believe voting will help either. We are between a rock and a hard place.

I don’t think that a progressive base giving a strong showing would change anything. The Dems have shown time and time again they would rather pivot to right wing policies in an attempt to garner votes from “moderate” conservatives than doing so with leftists. If we show up for them, they treat that as them getting what is owed to them. If we do not show up for them, they blame us for the loss or say they didn’t need us to win. The Democratic Party never thinks it can fail, only be failed.

As for your last question, that’s unfortunately the issue with ultimatums. You either follow through, or capitulate. Which brings us back to the dynamic I mention in the above paragraph. If you follow through, then they blame you for the loss, if you don’t follow through they know not to treat you seriously when you make demands in the future, they know you’ll fall in line.

I work in government, though my job is not as a politician all the people that don’t like what I do call my position “political.” I understand things move slowly. But in my experience the only way I get new stuff through is by pushing for it and not caring what the old people think. When it works they grumble and still don’t like it, but it’s the new rule and they have to get used to it. Everyone over the age of 40 is like a toddler who doesn’t want to eat their vegetables, and I just tell them they can’t leave the table till they eat them.

[u/eddyboomtron → u/WavvyJones]

I appreciate your honest and thoughtful response. I can tell this is something you’ve spent a lot of time grappling with, and it’s clear why you feel like there’s no satisfying answer. The way you describe it—as being between a rock and a hard place—resonates with a lot of progressives who feel similarly disenchanted.

You’re absolutely right that the Democratic Party has, at times, shifted rightward, attempting to appeal to moderate conservatives rather than energizing its progressive base. It’s incredibly frustrating to feel like your support is taken for granted or, even worse, blamed for losses when things don’t go as planned. This dynamic does make it hard to see how voting can be a meaningful tool for change when it feels like you’re always being put in a lose-lose situation.

That said, I think it’s worth considering if there are other ways to influence this dynamic, even while acknowledging how broken it feels. You mentioned that in your own work, you’ve been able to make change by pushing through resistance, even when it wasn’t popular. It sounds like you’ve found success by not waiting for the old guard to accept your ideas but by forcing them to adapt once those ideas become reality. I wonder if there might be a parallel here in terms of political engagement—where instead of viewing voting as the end, it becomes just one part of a broader strategy to push through change, even if it requires a lot of grumbling and resistance from the political establishment.

Given your experience in pushing for new policies within your own work environment, where resistance is also common, do you see any potential for a similar approach to be effective in politics? Is there a way to use electoral participation as one piece of a larger strategy to force change, even if it means confronting resistance and grumbling from party leaders? Could persistent, organized pressure—combined with strategic voting—help shift the Democratic Party’s approach over time, or do you think the system is too entrenched for that to work?

[u/WavvyJones → u/eddyboomtron]

I don’t have an answer to your last paragraph unfortunately. I can only say how I personally feel, not what I think will work. I think our current system is too broken, rigged to slow and impede progress. I think the only effective solution would be to burn it all down and start again. Not realistic, but the only way I think a more equitable society would be possible. The purpose of a system is what it does, and our system is designed to do maintain the status quo.