The Israeli genocide in Gaza has become a significant event in the global political landscape, especially in the upcoming U.S. elections. The ongoing genocide exposes deep divisions within American society, where voters show varying support for different perspectives on Palestine and the occupied state.
These dynamics could directly influence voters' choices, pushing them to evaluate candidates based on their positions in the Middle East. Additionally, both traditional media and social platforms are crucial in shaping public opinion, adding weight to this issue in election campaigns.
These events may set voters' priorities and shape their perspectives, potentially profoundly impacting the election results.
As the genocide in Gaza continues to escalate, killing thousands of civilians and causing massive destruction to infrastructure, the role of the United States in efforts to achieve a ceasefire is a key focus.
With November 5, the date of the U.S. presidential election, fast approaching, there’s a range of expectations around how the Gaza war—now over 11 months long—might influence the path to the White House.
The Gaza conflict has led to significant divisions within the Democratic Party and its grassroots base. Because of this, Arab and Muslim Americans, whose support is critical for swing states like Michigan, have taken on a particularly influential role in this election.
Last month, Harris pledged at the Democratic convention to achieve a ceasefire and ensure that Palestinians have their rights to dignity, security, freedom, and self-determination.
Many Arabs and Muslims in the United States believe that the US administration has sided with the Israeli war machine and provided it with weapons, equipment, and diplomatic support, which has contributed to the suffering of the people in Gaza. Therefore, their vote is expected to be punitive, this time in favor of any candidate who calls for an end to the genocide.
The US elections influence the way the government responds to the Israeli genocide in Gaza, as candidates seek to win voters’ support through their positions on the Palestinian national struggle with Israel. The ongoing genocide in Gaza put pressure on candidates to take clear positions on the genocide.
Democratic candidates, for example, face the challenge of maintaining a divided base, with some opposing unconditional support for Israel and calling for a ceasefire and relief from humanitarian suffering. In contrast, others fear that any opposition stance will alienate pro-Israel voters.
Despite growing international calls for a ceasefire, the U.S. role in the conflict depends largely on policy trends that could change with leadership changes.
If a candidate who advocates greater support for Israel wins, progress toward any agreement to end the genocide could slow. In contrast, another candidate who seeks to balance Palestinian rights with support for Israel could push international efforts to achieve a ceasefire.
Tensions are rising in the United States between voters who demand human rights for Palestinians and those who support traditional American support for Israel. These internal tensions could prompt the next administration, whoever it is, to reconsider its policies toward the Middle East, as it faces domestic and international pressure to adopt a more balanced stance.
As the election approaches, the Palestinian national struggle with Israel remains a real test of the candidates’ positions, their willingness to respond to humanitarian appeals, and the ability of the American people to influence their foreign policy.