While talking to friends and family, I have noticed a common theme among people who I know would otherwise vote Democrat. Many of them have decided to sit this presidential election out. They prefer Harris to Trump but find her to be unacceptable for one reason: the Israel-Palestine conflict.
To be fair, their issue is not just with Harris. These people have told me the Democratic Party establishment’s arrogance is exemplified by their position on the Gaza War. Many people sympathetic with the Palestinian plight (who, to reemphasize, are not sympathetic with the terrorist group Hamas) wish to see the Israeli military and government face consequences for the human rights violations and war crimes conducted during their campaign in the Gaza Strip and now southern Lebanon.
They, at the very least, wish the United States would block the sale of weapons until Israel complies with the relevant international laws and allows investigations into the conduct of their military and government. The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and the Arms Export Control Act provide a legal basis for us to stop weapons shipments to Israel, which has objectively committed war crimes.
Except for weapons used solely for defense (i.e. interceptor missiles and air-defense armaments), I agree with this view. However, where the people mentioned earlier and I differ is I will still end up voting for Harris, despite her continued lack of action.
Even among powerful, large western militaries, air operations are dictated by logistics. The amount of fuel and munitions, as well as downtime required for maintenance, severely restricts the scope of air operations. In the modern day, munitions are not the relatively cheap bullets and shells they used to be, but rather sophisticated, sometimes multi-million-dollars munitions. Hence, Israel’s continued air strikes are heavily dependent on a continued supply of hard-to-manufacture, expensive weaponry provided by the United States with the consent of the president.
It is a fundamental truth that Donald Trump does not care who the United States sells weapons to, so long as we turn a massive profit in the long run. This is evidenced by his weapons sales to Saudi Arabia, despite documented human rights violations by the Saudis with their air campaign in Yemen (most notably, the bombing of a school bus using a U.S.-made bomb) as well as the senseless killing of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
Regarding the Middle East specifically, I believe Harris will not save lives, but rather get less people killed. Some may roll their eyes at that distinction, asking why we should vote for one “killer” over another. However, for the people who end up not dying, the difference is tremendous.
I will not deny the concerns of these otherwise-reliable Democrats. The Democratic Party, in courting one specific demographic group, is known to take the vote of the rest of us for granted (even when a large part of said demographic group is sympathetic to the plight of Gazans). In a democracy, political parties should be punished for such behavior, but it becomes hard to do so in a two-party system. Thus, a protest vote where one votes third-party or not at all seems to be the only way to fight back.
But as I’ve made a point of before, and I will make a point of again, the stakes of this election are too high. More Gazans and Lebanese, and even Israelis, will die under a Trump administration. More Ukrainians will die under a Trump administration. Although our inaction with respect to Sudan is troubling, one can be sure we would not be better under a Trump administration. Thus, I am begging for everyone to delay their protest vote for one election cycle, when the stakes will likely be lower. Now, when the stakes are high domestically and globally, we must vote – not for Harris’s sake, but for the sake of people all around the world.
Janagan Ramanathan is a Sartell High School alum, former U.S. Naval Academy midshipman and current aerospace engineering major at the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities.
