I follow your logic in general, but I think the distinction I'd make is that even for a single issue Palestinian focused voter, there is good reason to think that the outcome of a Trump victory could be far worse for the Palestinian people.
In what I think is pragmatic advice, I think focusing on nearer term objectives that could set up a future sea change makes sense. I give credit to these activists for the recent increases in criticism and policy shifts on settlement activity. I would suspect that a reversal of Biden administration policies to "not grade Israel's homework" on law of war compliance is an achievable goal and one that sets up a stronger case for conditionality if the report comes back critical. Likewise, I'd say that the Sen. Van Hollen push on enforcing international law based arms transfer conditionality would be a useful one.
So, in essence, I think the question is how can a single issue voter leverage the difference between the parties to make progress and also increase the incentives for the Republican party to offer a competing bid.
Sadly, I can also see the rationale you lay out for simply giving up on one's single issue if achievable goals are simply inadequate to the stakes. For a socially conservative supporter of Palestine that despair could logically lead to giving up on politics or voting for Republicans on other issues as you outline. I think that is the big challenge for those sympathetic within the Democratic party, to show that there is enough of a difference that giving up hope is not the politically rationale course.
To be a single-issue voting bloc you need a group that cares about the single-issue to the exclusion of everything else. This makes sense for the Satmar Hasidim, their way of life is at stake. Is it true for Arab-Americans? The bombing of Gaza is excruciatingly inflaming, it could have been designed in a laboratory to maximally divide Democrats while uniting Republicans.
For Khalid Turaani to prevail and persuade Arab and Palestinian American voters to apply a single litmus test when passions cool requires an insular Arab and Palestinian American community. Arab and Palestinian Americans seem to be following the common immigration path of rapid assimilation.
Millman points out Arab and Palestinian Americans might trend conservative but for Republican anti-Muslim animus. Maybe, but this is small beer if the group was actually amenable single-issue voting as a long-term path. The Gaza War division among Democrats cuts the other way, victory within the Democratic Party is on the horizon; conditional aid to Israel is not longer far-fetched. That would be a big victory from the Palestinian perspective! Israel is far from allowing American aid to influence core foreign policy, aid to Israel would effectively end.
Biden's bear hug of Israel is likely a last gasp, a remnant of a dying order. Conditional aid is already the easier lift within the Democratic electorate, blocked by an aging leadership in Congress that is behind the times.
I follow your logic in general, but I think the distinction I'd make is that even for a single issue Palestinian focused voter, there is good reason to think that the outcome of a Trump victory could be far worse for the Palestinian people.
In what I think is pragmatic advice, I think focusing on nearer term objectives that could set up a future sea change makes sense. I give credit to these activists for the recent increases in criticism and policy shifts on settlement activity. I would suspect that a reversal of Biden administration policies to "not grade Israel's homework" on law of war compliance is an achievable goal and one that sets up a stronger case for conditionality if the report comes back critical. Likewise, I'd say that the Sen. Van Hollen push on enforcing international law based arms transfer conditionality would be a useful one.
So, in essence, I think the question is how can a single issue voter leverage the difference between the parties to make progress and also increase the incentives for the Republican party to offer a competing bid.
Sadly, I can also see the rationale you lay out for simply giving up on one's single issue if achievable goals are simply inadequate to the stakes. For a socially conservative supporter of Palestine that despair could logically lead to giving up on politics or voting for Republicans on other issues as you outline. I think that is the big challenge for those sympathetic within the Democratic party, to show that there is enough of a difference that giving up hope is not the politically rationale course.
Wow. Just discovered you in the JRB. Excellent writing there and here.
To be a single-issue voting bloc you need a group that cares about the single-issue to the exclusion of everything else. This makes sense for the Satmar Hasidim, their way of life is at stake. Is it true for Arab-Americans? The bombing of Gaza is excruciatingly inflaming, it could have been designed in a laboratory to maximally divide Democrats while uniting Republicans.
For Khalid Turaani to prevail and persuade Arab and Palestinian American voters to apply a single litmus test when passions cool requires an insular Arab and Palestinian American community. Arab and Palestinian Americans seem to be following the common immigration path of rapid assimilation.
Millman points out Arab and Palestinian Americans might trend conservative but for Republican anti-Muslim animus. Maybe, but this is small beer if the group was actually amenable single-issue voting as a long-term path. The Gaza War division among Democrats cuts the other way, victory within the Democratic Party is on the horizon; conditional aid to Israel is not longer far-fetched. That would be a big victory from the Palestinian perspective! Israel is far from allowing American aid to influence core foreign policy, aid to Israel would effectively end.
Biden's bear hug of Israel is likely a last gasp, a remnant of a dying order. Conditional aid is already the easier lift within the Democratic electorate, blocked by an aging leadership in Congress that is behind the times.