What do you do if the fallout of taking an action that could possibly halt Isreal but can't guarantee it would also cost you the election and then condemn Palestinians to total annihilation under Trump.
I could if I wanted to make the pretty easy counterpoint that despite Bibi's shortsightedness, Israel's genocide has a much smoother path to completion under an establishment Democratic administration than a Republican one. And Israel's influence in US politics are much better served with Harris winning.
Like Vietnam, a centrist Democrat engaging in the slaughter of innocents abroad is not going to be challenged from the left by the Republicans, at least not in any meaningful capacity. In fact, they will triangulate a Democratic hawk from the right by being MORE hawkish.
Meanwhile, party loyalist Democrats will buy into the baseline narratives because they will place greater trust in a Democratic president leading foreign policy than a Republican. They will be willing to go after their left flank to force capitulation to the Democratic status quo in the name of harm reduction. Contrast that with if it was a Republican, the whole of the Democratic Party would be much quicker to skepticism, criticism, and calls for course correction.
Like I guarantee you had Trump been in office during this period, the VAST majority of Democrats would be refusing to support sending offensive weapons to Bibi through back channels, would be losing their shit over Trump burying State Department reports that show clear evidence of Leahy Violations and war crimes that should trigger an arms embargo and targetted sanctions over humanitarian violations, demanding an immediate ceasefire, you'd have AOC at Columbia encampments decrying the authoritarian language of Trump trying to justify state violence to repress them, and the majority of Democrats refusing to authorize bills that go beyond arming Israel beyond basic defensive weaponry, and that would be the platform of the Democratic challenger going into November. Standing against AIPAC likely becomes a mainstream position.
But instead you have Biden that has done all that and core Democrats and party loyal supporters largely went along with it. And by going along with it it has done to Harris what happened to Hubert Humphrey. You have a bloodthirsty incumbent refusing to correct bad foreign policy and end suffering out of some toxically misguided and out-of-touch notions and a core set of party supporters comprising the majority of Democrats refusing to really stand in strong opposition to that policy. So it leaves the VP that is attempting to win election stuck in no man's land. Where had enough centrists broke away and supported the protestors, it would force the candidate to come over to their side faster and more holistically, but absent that they are just carrying forward a genocidal status quo and looking to inherit that dynamic.
And what of Harris? Is she going to suddenly want to burn her political capital on defending Palestineans? Will those core Democrats refusing to vote uncommitted and rather finger wag Palestineans to fall in line suddenly feel now is the time to tear down the first black female president in the name of demanding an end to a genocide they have ignored successfully so far?
Call me crazy, but my guess is that they wont. And my guess is that Harris, feeling that she needs to get other things done with what will be at best a slim majority wont want to burn capital on going to war with AIPAC, Republicans, and the narratives the party has fed itself for nearly a year. So Harris will continue the same status quo dynamic and Democrats will fall in line and tell anti-genociders that Harris has a mandate and that detractors are serving far-right conservatives still.
