- 75 years after President Harry Truman, a Democrat, recognized Israel during his 1948 presidential election campaign, the revulsion caused by Israel’s annihilation of Gaza may provide the margin of defeat for a Democratic presidential candidate
The author holds a master’s and PhD in history from Istanbul’s Sabanci University, where he taught Turkish history for nine years.
ISTANBUL
This past week, we saw another example of the Joe Biden administration struggling to appear steadfastly pro-Israel, and at the same time, appear to be curbing the Israeli government’s excesses. A letter threatening the Israeli government with cuts in arms shipments if the humanitarian situation in Gaza is not improved, and signed only by Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, was leaked to the press. Suffice it to say that no one was fooled — this was an obviously calculated attempt by the Biden administration to appear to be “talking tough” to the Israelis while providing plausible deniability, especially to Vice President Kamala Harris, as the 2024 presidential campaign enters its homestretch.
The Biden administration has pursued this contradictory stance for the past year. With only weeks left until the election and polls indicating an extremely close race, the Democratic Party is utilizing every method at its disposal to keep its voters onside.
The Austin/Blinken letter leak, however, seemed like an act of desperation and was unseemly. Several weeks previously, press reports revealed that Secretary Blinken lied to Congress about whether Israel was blocking aid shipments to Gaza. Only days before, reports emerged that Blinken had even agreed to Israeli targeting of aid vehicles. And a day after the letter leak, Politico reported that Lise Grande, the Biden administration’s special envoy for Middle East humanitarian issues, “…told aid groups in August that the U.S. would not consider withholding weapons from Israel for blocking food and medicine from entering the enclave.” Meanwhile, Biden sent the US’ own air defense systems, along with US soldiers to operate them, to Israel.
None of these reports were surprising to those who have followed developments in Gaza over the past year. Rather, they confirm what long ago became obvious. The fundamentally insincere approach that the Biden administration has taken towards Gaza over the past year is solidly entrenched, and Kamala Harris, as far as can be understood, participates openly and willingly in maintaining that policy stance.
Foreign policy never the key factor, but…
A truism regarding US presidential elections is that foreign policies may garner media attention, but citizens rarely vote solely on such issues. Instead, the economy and other domestic topics are usually rated higher on surveys concerning which subjects most affect voter behavior.
On the other hand, this election’s apparent closeness creates the real possibility that a foreign policy subject can determine the outcome because one or two key states may provide the margin of victory for either candidate.
The US Electoral College
At this point, I should remind readers that US presidential elections are not decided by the popular vote. Instead, the popular vote’s winner in each state accrues a pre-determined number of Electoral College votes — that number is determined by the state’s population, but every state gets at least three. [7] Several minor exceptions exist, [8] but in general, all of a state’s electoral votes go to the winner of that state’s popular vote. The candidate earning a majority of the Electoral College votes is then declared the victor.
The Electoral College’s major implication played an insignificant role in US history until 25 years ago: the winner of the popular vote may actually lose the Electoral College, and thus lose the election. In 2000, Democrat Al Gore won the popular vote, but lost the Electoral College, making Republican George Walker Bush president; in 2016, Democrat Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by a large margin but lost the Electoral College to Republican Donald Trump.
In recent decades demography and domestic politics have combined to make a handful of states “swing states,” as American parlance puts it. These are states possessing sizable electoral vote tallies, but that also feature a mix of urban and rural voters that makes those states’ election outcomes difficult to predict. In this election cycle, states such as Georgia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin fit into this category, but one other swing state is receiving attention for a different reason.
Michigan and Gaza
Michigan is the home of the Democratic Party’s Uncommitted movement, a bloc of voters — predominantly Arab and/or Muslims — who are usually stalwart Democratic Party voters but who, because of the Biden administration’s stance concerning the Gaza conflict and refusal to stop US arms shipments to Israel, are stating openly that they will either not vote or will vote for a third party candidate. [9]
Currently, the outcome in Michigan is too close to predict with any confidence, but in 2016, Trump won the state by slightly more than 10,000 votes. In 2020, Trump increased his vote tally in Michigan by more than 350,000, but Biden beat him by 150,000 votes. Michigan’s turnout in 2020 was also 8% higher than in 2016. That data suggests that turnout will determine which candidate wins Michigan. And Michigan’s outcome may determine who becomes the next US President.
Michigan also possesses one of America’s largest Arab and Muslim populations, by most estimates 300,000 people or more. While that number far exceeds Biden’s margin of victory in 2020, events in recent weeks indicate that the Biden administration’s stance towards Gaza, and Kamala Harris’ refusal to break with that stance, have triggered even more serious withdrawals of support.
The Uncommitted movement’s approach is to either vote for a third party or not vote at all because of Trump’s past remarks concerning Muslims and immigrants. But some Michigan Arabs and/or Muslims are apparently embracing Trump. Trump’s campaign, aware of an opportunity, is actively courting Michigan’s Arab and Muslim voters even though Trump’s pro-Israel stance is more radical than Biden’s or Harris'.
Thus, 75 years after President Harry Truman, a Democrat, recognized Israel during his 1948 presidential election campaign, the revulsion caused by Israel’s annihilation of Gaza may provide the margin of defeat for a Democratic presidential candidate. Will the Biden administration’s refusal to deal honestly with America’s Arab and Muslim voters cost Kamala Harris an election that increasingly looks to portend historic developments?
[7] The total number of Electoral College votes equals each state’s total representation in Congress, so three means two Senators plus one House Representative.
[8] One of those exceptions, Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District, is getting close scrutiny in this election: https://elections2024.thehill.com/forecast/2024/president/nebraska-2/.
[9] https://www.uncommittedmovement.com. The US Green Party’s candidate, Jill Stein, seems to be a popular choice for the Uncommitted bloc: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/08/us/politics/palestine-uncommitted-trump.html;https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/20/us/politics/jill-stein-harris-trump.html. Stein, who is Jewish, advocates an immediate end to US arms shipments to Israel: https://www.jillstein2024.com/foreign_policy_and_demilitarization.
*Opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Anadolu's editorial policy.
