Democratic voters are clear: they want an arms embargo on Israel, not more rhetoric

Over the past few months, we’ve watched progressives notch victories in Democratic primaries across the country. Some wins were expected, while others were improbable. In many of these contests, Israel emerged as a flashpoint issue. Candidates gained momentum by centering the human rights of Palestinians, highlighting the genocide in Gaza, decrying AIPAC spending, and calling for an end to arms sales. This electoral momentum has inevitably been met with backlash, as many have downplayed the wins and launched broad attacks on left politics, with a specific focus on the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), who backed a number of the victorious campaigns. These attacks have come not only from the GOP but also from centrist members of the Democratic Party. In recent weeks, a number of Democratic lawmakers have spent their energy targeting left-wing Twitch streamer Hasan Piker, who campaigned with Michigan’s Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed. As Queens College professor Walter Lucken pointed out in Mondoweiss earlier this year, the debate around Piker has a lot to do with his firm anti-Zionist politics. “The insistence that no Democrat associate with Hasan Piker on the part of the liberal political and media establishment is, in fact, a tacit acknowledgment of two basic facts: First, the debate about Palestine in progressive politics is over. Second, figures like Piker in fact derive their moral authority from their willingness to break the taboos imposed by a political elite that has lost its credibility in the face of genocide in Gaza,” wrote Lucken. “Piker, in the end, is merely a symbol of the ascendant left populist consensus which places Palestine at the center of its politics as a global beacon for social justice and resistance to oppression,” he continued. “Indeed, these currents may very well reshape American democracy in the decades to come.” He’s right, but we’ve also seen the ascendant left-populist consensus quashed and/or co-opted over the years. In fact, we’ve already seen some candidates (including El-Sayed) shift their rhetoric in response to pro-Israel backlash. So, how can advocates for Palestine ensure that, if elected, progressive candidates will remain committed to the issue? Organizer and writer James Ray told Mondoweiss that there’s a specific litmus test that can be applied to politicians. “Over the next years, as Palestine continues to be a defining political issue, and as public opinion continues to erode for the Israeli project, we are likely to see more political actors attempting to stake out positions that seem ‘pro-Palestine’ without having to commit to real material changes that might undermine the Israeli project itself,” said Ray. “An arms embargo helps cut through a lot of the half measures and non-solution ‘ solutions’ and instead directly holds the Israelis accountable in a way that degrades their ability to not just commit genocide in Gaza, but commit to violent military acts regionally.” “An arms embargo therefore must be the standard, as it forces elected officials to clarify that they are willing to undermine the project materially for the sake of the millions being harmed by the occupation and it’s military forces,” he continued. “A state or colony committing genocide should not be able to purchase a single bomb or bullet from the U.S., and any political actor who is claiming to stand with Palestinians must be held to a standard the ensures that the weapons shipments stop.” Iman Abid, the Political Director of USCPR Action, said organizations like his were specifically created to hold lawmakers accountable to the people they represent, and also cited an arms embargo as a central requirement. “After the U.S. political establishment has ignored and dehumanized Palestinian lives for eons, Palestine is now one of the biggest voting issues of this midterm election,” explained Abid. “At a moment like this, we’re very aware that politicians can be tempted to capitulate on the promises they’ve made once they’re in power…If they want our support, they need to keep fighting for our movement’s demands like a full arms embargo now.” These sentiments aren’t specific to a small number of activists. Polling shows they’re shared by the vast majority of Democrats and will be at the forefront of voters’ minds when they head to the polls to elect a 2028 presidential nominee. A recent IMEU Policy Project survey of voters in the first states to hold primaries for the 2028 election found that a majority of respondents want the U.S. to stop sending Israel weapons and place sanctions on the country. “These things, when they’re discussed, it’s often as ‘This is something that is out of the mainstream’, but they’re overwhelmingly supported by the voters who are probably going to be pretty decisive in deciding the next nominee for president in the Democratic Party,” IMEU spokesperson Hamid Bendaas told Al Jazeera. “When that happens, when you have a new leader who takes a new position, that really does help parties shift more rapidly,” he added. “Unfortunately, the current leadership as it stands in the Democratic Party has been people who have a very status quo view about the US-Israel relationship. And so, what ultimately needs to happen is the party just needs a new leader who actually reflects its voters.”