Is the ‘uncommitted’ movement making an unforced error in attacking Harris?

The Uncommitted National Movement, a loose coalition of activists, is praiseworthy for its spirited efforts to pressure the Democratic Party, and now its nominee, Vice President Kamala Harris to bring about a ceasefire in Gaza and impose an arms embargo against Israel.

Despite the movement’s success in galvanizing tens of thousands of activists, it was denied a speaking spot at last month’s Democratic National Convention. There is every reason for these activists to sour on Harris for such a snub and for failing to do more to stop the suffering of Gazans under a relentless Israeli occupation.

In an opinion article in Al Jazeera, Maura Finkelstein, a cultural anthropologist, explains why she won’t be voting for Harris: “My red line is genocide, and no ‘good vibes’ campaigning will move it.” She also points out that “More than 700,000 Americans have cast an ‘uncommitted’ vote in the Democratic primaries, demonstrating their rejection of the Democratic Party’s ‘ironclad’ support for Israel.”

Such a principled objection to Harris may seem justified. However, an unflinching commitment to the people of Gaza requires not succumbing to the temptation of prioritizing emotions and optics over the actual consequences of actions. The coalition’s use of the ballot box as a piñata to vent their frustration would amount to nothing more than an act of performative conscientiousness — while making things far worse for the very people they claim to be fighting for.

What is needed is skillful and strategic action, not the nurturing of grievances and impulsiveness. My concern is that the movement’s aggressive anti-Harris stance is an unforced error that may deal them a defeat in their end game. 

Such a stance would have been perfectly valid and constructive if it were solely a binary dynamic between Kamala Harris and the Uncommitted National Movement. However, this is a triangular play in which Donald Trump, the elephant in the room, cannot be ignored without jeopardizing the cause at hand. Surely the activists who are mobilizing with so much passion against Harris can’t be oblivious to the fact that her opponent would be considerably more ruinous to the fate of Palestinians. Maligning Harris at this crucial phase of the election would amount to tilting the scale in favor of Trump, an unabashed pro-Israel hawk.

Despite her progressive rhetoric, Harris has turned out to be a disappointment because of her inability or unwillingness to fundamentally challenge America’s pro-Israel policy, which extends even to supplying bombs that are being used against the people of Gaza. But it would be prudent to consider that she is not yet the commander-in-chief. There are limits to what she can do at this point as the vice president.

What is important is that, compared to all other politicians who are in a position to have an impact on this situation, she has been the most vocal in acknowledging the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the urgent need for a ceasefire.

Therefore, making this a battle against Harris, the person most uniquely positioned to become a powerful ally for the uncommitted, is an act of self-sabotage. Additionally, by vilifying Harris, the uncommitted movement risks alienating a significant portion of the American electorate who might otherwise be sympathetic to their cause.

Harris, as the first female, Black and South Asian vice president, carries substantial symbolic weight. Her position within the Democratic Party is also pivotal; she represents a bridge between the party’s progressive and moderate wings. Alienating her could push the party further to the right on issues related to Israel and Palestine.

A more pragmatic approach would involve holding Harris and the Democratic Party accountable while recognizing the political realities of the American system. By engaging constructively with Harris and advocating for change from within, the uncommitted movement could have a far greater impact on U.S. policy toward Israel and Palestine.

No matter how unintentional, it would be a monumental act of hypocrisy for those advocating to end the suffering of the people of Gaza to undercut Harris’s chances, knowing that doing so directly translates into paving the way for Trump, who in his first term attempted to implement a “Muslim travel ban” and is eager to support Israel in “finishing the job” in Gaza. From that standpoint, fussing over Harris would be like fretting over a splinter while ignoring the sword that would come crashing down over the Palestinians if Trump gains control of the White House.

Parthiv N. Parekh is the editor-in-chief of Khabar, a magazine serving Indian American readers.