If Democrats lose, they will lose because of Gaza

The words above, uttered by Sami Hamdi on one of the English-speaking community’s best-known Muslim podcasts, Thinking Muslim, may well become a prediction about the outcome of the forthcoming presidential election in the United States. In a race where literally thousands, not even hundreds of thousands, of votes will determine who becomes the future president, the voice of the Muslim minority and its allies could be decisive.

And the community leaders are not united, even though some of them, like a prominent columnist for the Palestinian cause, Mehdi Hasan, call for mobilisation supporting Kamala Harris, warning that the fate of the Muslim community worldwide will be much worse under Donald Trump.

Kamala Harris is continuing her efforts to gain the support of Arab and Muslim communities in the United States ahead of next month’s elections. At the same time, she has maintained her unwavering stance supporting Israel throughout the conflicts in Gaza and Lebanon. Despite that, the US vice president and her delegation have met with Arab and Muslim community leaders on numerous occasions.

Even though many of them were previously thought to support the movement to ban arms exports to Israel, Harris was able to secure the endorsements of several prominent activists and organisations within the Democratic Party.

However, the Democratic Party establishment has maintained its commitment to providing military assistance to Israel and has declined to diverge from President Joe Biden’s unwavering support for the US ally, which continues to impede the efforts of the vice-president herself.

Harris therefore defied the left wing of the party, securing the support of groups of voters that have traditionally been a reliable constituency for candidates with her profile, due to their association with minority rights. Furthermore, it appears that the overture made by the high-ranking representatives of this group, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her team, has been rebuffed.

The AOC and others, to the surprise of many, demonstrated a degree of restraint and endorsed the vice-president at the party’s congress in Chicago. They have since resumed their advocacy for Palestinian rights but have also reaffirmed their opposition to Israeli escalation. This may be an attempt to mitigate the impact of Biden’s diplomatic shortcomings, which could potentially hinder the success of his successor’s campaign.

Nevertheless, Muslims and their allies, traditionally Democrat voters, have a wider range of options than simply voting for Harris. This was highlighted by a recent disagreement between two prominent columnists, Sami Hamdi and Mehdi Hassan, which brought to the fore the key issues at stake in the current race for minority votes, particularly those of Muslims.

To vote, or not to vote…?

It is evident that the current situation did not originate with Sami Hamdi’s appearance on the Thinking Muslim podcast several weeks ago. Rather, it is a manifestation of the prevailing tensions within the Muslim community, particularly in the Anglo-Saxon region.

The opinion expressed by the international relations analyst Sami Hamdi, however, appears to encapsulate the effects of a year of genocide in Gaza at the hands of the IDF. This approach was subsequently emulated by Muslims around the globe. He considers the current US election to be an ideal opportunity to express his political anger at the Joe Biden administration’s involvement in the genocide, given that Kamala Harris is an indispensable part of his cabinet.

The forthcoming election will serve to illustrate the extent of influence that the Democratic Party’s electorate exerts over Israeli politics. This, in turn, is a significant factor within American politics, given the role of organisations such as AIPAC in funding American politicians. The increasing shipments of arms, political support and military protection sent to Israel are indicative of the intertwined nature of the two political systems. In Hamdi’s view, the responsibility to not vote for Harris falls upon all individuals, but particularly upon Muslims. He considers the outcome of the election between Trump and the vice-president to be far from certain. It is unclear what the Republican candidate could do that the Democrats have not already done.

In his YouTube appearance, the question was transformed into a comprehensive examination of Trump’s initial policies towards the Muslim community. These were perceived as detrimental, particularly to the Muslim community residing in the US. Internationally, however, he conceded that they were no more problematic than the policies of the current US administration.

This leaves the current election to choose between the two candidates, neither of whom can be considered really preferable. In this context, a significant movement of solidarity with Palestine has the potential to impact not only American universities, but also the financial stability of multinational corporations such as Starbucks and McDonald’s. This creates an opportunity for individuals to engage in actions that may have been previously considered unacceptable. In his view, exercising one’s franchise in a way that deviates from the norm, whether by voting for the Democrats and Jill Stein, or not voting at all, could result in the Democrats losing precisely because of their actions in Gaza.

He believes that such a stance could result in the dissolution of Israel’s unique relationship with at least one of the two parties, in this case the Democratic one. This is because it would set a precedent in which American liberals would lose to the right by their own electorate due to poor policy decisions regarding their uncritical support of Tel Aviv.

Mehdi le Fataliste

The response from Mehdi Hasan is not, as many may have originally assumed, a straightforward one. It does not simply advise voting for Harris because Trump will be worse. In his essay published on the YouTube profile of his new media project Zeteo, one of America’s most prominent Muslims begins by critiquing the exploitation of people’s faith and morals for political gain, particularly in the context of electoral politics.

Furthermore, he observes that this phenomenon is not exclusive to the communications of Hamdi’s circle, which includes the imams and influencers who have gathered around him following the publication of the conversation on Thinking Muslim in response to his call. Instead, he also identifies instances of this phenomenon within the communication of members of the Green Party, to which Jill Stein belongs. He asserts that such actions are simply undignified and reprehensible.

Subsequently, he then proceeds to respond at an analytical level. He laments that any “moral victories” achieved by political groups on the Democratic side, whether they be members of the left, Muslims, or other minorities, have never resulted in long-term changes to the party’s policies. The 2000 election, in which George W. Bush secured the majority of the Muslim vote, and the 2016 election, in which it became evident that Bernie Sanders’ campaign offered an effective antidote to Trump populism, serve as illustrative examples of the Democratic Party’s persistent failure to alter its stance.

Even more importantly, it has demonstrated an inability to undergo such a transformation. It has held the left accountable for its electoral defeat at the hands of Trump, resulting in the marginalisation of its influence within the party. Additionally, it has demonstrated a lack of responsiveness to the demands of minority groups, such as Muslims, who are subjected to prejudice and discrimination in the American political landscape.

Moreover, Hasan posits that no such reversal has resulted in a modification of Republican policy towards Muslims. The Republican Party has consistently demonstrated a lack of concern for the rights and interests of the Muslim minority and its allies. This is evident in the foreign policy decisions of both the Bush and Trump administrations, which involved military action in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as Saudi Arabia’s genocidal war in Yemen. In these instances, the Republican Party did not consider addressing the concerns of the Muslim minority and its allies, but rather adopted a stance of hostility towards them. According to Mehdi, the assumption that this time will be different is a manifestation of naive thinking.

In his view, we are simply facing a tragic choice in this election.

Becoming a subject?

It is significant to note that the two parties in conflict, representing disparate viewpoints, acknowledge the pivotal concerns pertaining to the moral evaluation of Israel’s actions with the backing of the United States in Gaza, and now also in Lebanon, with the potential for similar actions across the region in response to Iran. On these issues, there is no discrepancy between them. Furthermore, Mehdi Hasan’s strategy for engaging potential voters, or even non-voters, with Hamdi, who is aligned with Jill Stein, is shaped by his identity as a journalist seeking to disseminate factual information rather than as a political adversary. In this instance, the two planes of conflict are conflated, and the stakes for the two publicists are inadequately defined.

Hamdi’s intervention has resulted in the formation of a political movement, which is now attracting the attention of an increasing number of prominent figures in the Muslim community in the Anglosphere. In contrast, Mehdi was one of the key figures involved, arguably the most prominent, yet he did not put forward a concrete alternative proposal. Instead, his remarks were perceived as statements and a call for inaction, particularly given the heightened tensions at the time.

This seems to indicate a certain lack of perspective on his part. Despite correctly asserting that the actions of the Green Party and its growing group of supporters among American Muslims may appear naive when viewed in the context of the past 30 years, Mehdi fails to recognise the significance of his own involvement in this pivotal event.

In the aftermath of a year characterised by genocide, a modest Muslim community comprising approximately one percent of the US population has succeeded in establishing its own discourse, engaging in public debate and initiating a social movement within the Democratic Party. Furthermore, it has engaged in sophisticated political discourse with a reach of millions of people on social and traditional media, operating within a context of significant adversity and hostility. This includes the entirety of the USA’s media and political apparatus, which has been largely indifferent or even hostile to the community’s efforts.

It would appear that the extent of the discussion and the growth in influence of the community in question, which is centred on opposition to US policy towards Israel, may be a cause for surprise. This deserves to be subjected to a far more in-depth analysis than that which has been provided above. Nevertheless, it may be argued that the Muslim community is becoming a subject of US policy, or rather, will become one for the current election. This will result in a significant increase in its influence on the outcome relative to how it might be judged by those without the requisite training, who assess it solely because of the percentage of Muslims in US society.

Left divided

This process of becoming a political subject, an entity, the current stakes of which, but also the final results of which, are not yet known, has also coincided with a second parallel political process, namely the reassertion of the American left within the Democratic Party. Evidently, the left is once again able to speak with its own voice and fight for the issues that are important to it, even against its own president and running candidate.

For better or worse, the first time since the left is able to do that comes at the time when a border electorate of the left-leaning Americans is divided, mainly on the Gaza issues and whether it should lead to not voting for the Democrats.

When it comes to Jill Stein, she has emerged as an influential figure within the US left-wing electorate, particularly among those disillusioned with the centrist positions of the Democratic Party. A former Green Party presidential candidate, Stein has long advocated policies that resonate with progressive voters, including Medicare for All, environmental justice, a robust stance on climate change, and a foreign policy free of corporate and military interests. Stein’s appeal stems largely from her willingness to criticise both major political parties, positioning herself and the Green Party as a genuine alternative for voters who feel the Democrats are falling short on progressive commitments.

Her influence with the broader left-wing electorate has grown recently, as some progressive voters, including younger demographics and activists, see her as a moral voice calling for uncompromising political stances on health care, wealth inequality and militarism. This segment of the electorate sees in Stein an unwavering commitment to systemic change rather than incremental reform, in line with a broader push within the left for political revolution rather than mere reform of the existing order.

However, Stein’s impact goes beyond direct support; her presence galvanises broader debates within the left, forcing Democrats to engage more seriously with progressive issues. By consistently presenting an alternative narrative, Stein puts pressure on mainstream Democrats to consider left-wing policies more seriously or risk losing parts of their base. Her influence highlights the growing divide within the American left, where a growing number of voters feel underserved by a Democratic Party they see as overly aligned with corporate interests and incrementalist approaches. In this sense, Jill Stein’s influence extends beyond the Green Party, resonating as a powerful reminder of the Democratic Party’s vulnerability and its struggle to keep its progressive base energised and engaged, pushing once again the question of Gaza to the forefront of this elections.

Final stakes

Ultimately, this election is more than a choice between political candidates; it’s a watershed moment that reflects the growing political agency of American Muslims and the progressive left within the Democratic Party. For Democrats, the stakes go beyond winning or losing the White House; they encompass a broader debate about the party’s identity, values, and ability to engage and represent the voices within its coalition, including those increasingly critical of US foreign policy in the Middle East.

For the Muslim community and its allies, the election is a test of their influence over a party that has long courted their support but has at times fallen short of their expectations on issues such as Palestine. The open frustration expressed by voices such as Sami Hamdi signals a willingness among parts of this electorate to withhold support if their demands for a human rights-based foreign policy go unheeded. In contrast, figures like Mehdi Hasan urge caution, warning against undermining a Democratic platform that, for all its flaws, represents an essential bulwark against a potentially regressive Republican agenda on civil rights and liberties.

The outcome of this election could reshape the Democratic Party’s approach to foreign policy, particularly its alliance with Israel. If the Democrats suffer a defeat attributed to a disconnect with progressive voters, it could prompt a deeper reckoning about the need to balance domestic considerations with the demands of a morally engaged electorate. This tension has forced Democratic leaders, including Kamala Harris, to walk a fine line between supporting Israel and addressing the concerns of the left.

If the Democrats lose over Gaza, as Hamdi suggests, it could signal a permanent realignment in which the progressive left and minority communities such as Muslims push the party to reflect their values or risk losing their support. In this sense, the election becomes a litmus test, not just for the Democrats’ electoral strategy, but for the possibility of broader shifts in US politics — towards a future in which marginalised voices and dissenting perspectives shape the policies of a major political party. The results may ultimately reveal whether the Democratic Party can evolve to meet this moment, or whether, as Hamdi warns, it remains wedded to an outdated status quo that alienates its own base.

Subscribe to Cross-border Talks’ YouTube channel! Follow the project’s Facebook and Twitter page! And here are the podcast’s Telegram channel and its Substack newsletter!