Like many Arab Americans, I am torn about this election

Pro-Palestinian demonstrators rally near the White House in Washington on June 8 to protest against Israel's actions in Gaza. Conflict in the Middle East has weighed heavily on the US presidential campaign. AFPShow less

The current US presidential election campaign has generated an intense debate within the Arab-American community.

If it were a normal election year, I would be out in the field urging my community to vote for Democrats. I would be warning Arab Americans that they needed to do everything they could to stop Donald Trump from re-entering the White House.

I would remind them of his xenophobia and anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant rhetoric. I would point to the danger he poses to women’s rights, civil rights and civil liberties, the environment, health care, civil discourse and the constitution.

It would be, as is said, “a slam dunk”. But this isn’t a normal election.

Houston's Lebanese community turn backs on Democrats

01:43

Arab Americans have been deeply traumatised by the war in Gaza and Lebanon. They are justifiably furious at President Joe Biden’s refusal to enforce US laws that could rein in Israel’s unconscionable and illegal actions, and accuse them of enabling Israel’s impunity.

Given this, there has been a significant decline in Arab-American support for Democrats, an uptick in support for Republicans, and many saying that they want to punish Democrats by voting for a third-party candidate. I, too, feel this pain and am torn as to how to move forward.

However, for those who rightly want to punish the Democratic nominee for president, there are some questions worth pondering upon.

When they say they are voting their conscience by supporting a third party, how will punishing Vice President Kamala Harris and enabling Mr Trump to become president end Israeli actions – especially as Arab Americans have allies in the progressive side of the Democratic Party who support, and have been working with, them to advance their foreign and domestic policy concerns and will be with them to pressure a Harris White House? Meanwhile, the Republican Party in its current form is dominated by hardline hawks who have little or no concern for the Palestinian people.

The problem with ideologues, both on the left and the right, is that they often miss the muck of the reality in which most people live

Another question worth asking is, how will voting for parties that have been around for decades and yet struggle to gain even 1 per cent of the vote will advance anything other than helping elect Mr Trump? Or, how will turning Arab Americans’ backs on all of the groups that have been their allies in the struggles for their civil and political rights and for a just foreign policy add up to “voting one’s conscience”?

It reminds me of a lesson I learnt from the late civil rights leader Julian Bond in the aftermath of the 1968 presidential election.

It was a time when the US was reeling from the Vietnam War, urban unrest and the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr and senator Robert Kennedy. In the wake of voter opposition to the war, then Democratic president Lyndon Johnson had been forced to end his re-election bid in favour of his vice president, Hubert Humphrey.

All of this was in the air when Democrats met for their convention to formally nominate Humphrey. On the first night of the convention, there was a fight over whether to recognise the all-white Georgia state delegation or the mixed delegation led by Bond. The mixed delegation won a partial victory.

On the second night, the convention wrestled with an effort to amend the platform to oppose the continuation of the war. Bond was a leader in this fight, too. Those who backed the amendment lost.

On the third night, when the convention met to nominate Humphrey’s vice-presidential running mate, the anti-war delegates proposed Bond to run against the party leaders’ hand-picked choice, senator Ed Muskie. When the party leaders couldn’t silence the anti-war opposition, they brought in the police who were televised beating delegates who were chanting Bond’s name.

On the final day of the convention, after Humphrey and Muskie gave their acceptance speeches, Bond came on stage and in a show of unity held up the hands of both Humphrey and Muskie. Many young activists, like myself, were devastated.

Kamala Harris calls for Gaza ceasefire but won't shy away from support for Israel

01:14

A few years later, I got to know Bond, and asked him why he did that. In response, he said that there were two types of people. Those who looked down at the evils of the world and said: “I’m going to stand on my principles because it’s got to get a lot worse before it gets better.” Then there are those who say: “I’ve got to get to work to see if I can make it at least a little bit better.”

He added: “I’m with the second group because if I took the first view, I’d be allowing too many people to continue to suffer while I maintained my purity and refused to do anything to help. At the convention, it wasn’t Julian Bond versus Ed Muskie. It was Hubert Humphrey versus Richard Nixon, and I had to make a choice as to who would help make life at least a little bit better.”

The problem with ideologues, both on the left and the right, is that they often miss the muck of the reality in which most people live and the tough, and often less-than-perfect, choices with which they are confronted in the never-ending challenge to make life a little bit better. This is usually the case, whether in the struggle for human rights, improvements in the quality of life, or the provision of security for those who are most vulnerable.

Today, Arab Americans have to decide which group of people they want to be part of.