The War on Gaza Is an Outrage. Sitting Out the Election Could Make It Worse.

Sometimes it’s hard to vote Democrat, and Bill Clinton certainly doesn’t make it any easier. In Michigan on Wednesday, he gave a pretty good, standard speech about the need to protect the Constitution from Donald Trump, whose only concern is personal loyalty to himself. Then he turned to Gaza, and Benjamin Netanyahu could just as well have been on the podium there: the Jews were there first, “Judea and Samaria”, the human shields of Hamas, etc. He also noted that “Kamala Harris said that ‘I will try to negotiate an end to the violence, an end to the killing,'” but that was lost in the outrage that naturally followed his remarks — an outrage that I share. The death of many thousands of children, the destruction of hospitals and whole neighborhoods, the starvation of the population – there is no excuse for such war crimes.

However, Clinton is not running for president. He has not been president for a quarter of a century. He was great when he explained Obamacare to a bewildered crowd at the 2008 Democratic convention, but since then he seems to have popped up more often than not to hurt the chances of women running for president, especially his wife. (Remember how often Hillary Clinton was blamed for her husband’s sexual sins?)

But this is 2024. It would be a grave mistake, a world-historic mistake that could potentially outlast the lifetime of everyone reading this, to deny Vice President Harris your vote next week — be it because of the support of Liz and Dick Cheney, among other conservatives , Harris has a gun, or Clinton’s speech in Michigan.

Neither should any of us refuse to vote because of Gaza. As horrible as the ongoing carnage that has now spread to Lebanon, which allowed Trump to be elected either through abstention or support for a third party candidate, this is no way to protest. Trump, after all, is fully on Israel’s side in its war against the Palestinians. As president, he moved Israel’s capital to Jerusalem, an incredibly provocative gesture that he must have known. He calls himself the “defender” of Israel. He – said Netanyahu to “do what you’ve got to do.”

Netanyahu, by the way, clearly supports Trump, as do the vast majority of Israelis. In our two-party system, Harris must be judged against the alternative — and there is simply no way that Trump is better for the Palestinians. Given what we know of his anti-Muslim views – remember the Muslim ban? – he will almost certainly be worse.

On October 25, a group of 100 Arizona Arab, Muslim and Palestinian leaders published a statement I hope everyone will read it. Its authors warn against Trump’s bellicosity, but also see signs of hope in Harris’ leadership:

Several media reports have suggested that Harris’ national security advisers are willing to reassess policy and make aid to Israel conditional. October 13^thousandOn the same day the administration threatened to review military support unless Israel improves humanitarian conditions in Gaza and reduces civilian casualties in the next 30 days, Harris tweeted: “Israel must urgently do more to ease the flow of aid to those located in Gaza. need Civilians must be protected and have access to food, water and medicine. International humanitarian law must be respected.” In Michigan the other day, Harris made clear his sympathy for the suffering of the people of Palestine and Lebanon and the impact of that devastation on Arab Americans. She pledged to do “everything in her power” as president to end the war in Gaza, end the suffering of Palestinians and achieve “a future of security and dignity for all people in the region.”

And it’s not just about Harris and Trump. The letter noted that Harris’ “decisions as president will be determined by the larger Democratic coalition, which includes a growing force advocating for human rights in Palestine.” They note that in Arizona, where the letter was written, the Democratic Party passed a resolution calling for a ceasefire. “Every member of Congress who has publicly called for a ceasefire in Gaza or an arms embargo is a Democrat,” the letter states. “Major national labor unions, civil rights groups and progressive organizations that have called for an end to military aid to Israel are working to elect Harris.”

And the Republican Party, the authors write, “offers zero opposition to unconditional support for Israel and zero support for Palestinian human rights. Instead, Republicans are urging the U.S. to join Israel in bombing Iran, calling to “bounce off the rubble in Gaza” and “kill them all” and likely to support the Israeli far-right’s bid to annex Gaza and the West Bank.”

Are you thinking of voting for Jill Stein or Cornell West to punish the Democrats and move them to the left? That’s not what happened when left-leaning Democrats voted for Nader in 2000 and helped defeat Gore. Instead, the Arizona letter argues, it also marginalized Nader and his followers. You hear a lot from people today who regret that vote, but who says, “If I had voted for Nader?” Same with the vote for Stein today. When she helped organize Trump’s 2016 election, progressives got nothing in return. She simply disappeared for another four years.

There are those who see their vote as self-expression, a “vote of conscience,” a “refusal to compromise.” But that’s not what voting is all about. Voting is not an expression of personal principles. It is a forced choice between two alternatives, one of which is slightly better than the other, and one of which will win. If you don’t participate, you’re just helping the wrong side. Like Noam Chomsky, not a liberal sheep, arguingyou vote for the lesser evil because it is the lesser evil. You are not done with this vote; you start with that.