Why the Democrats were -and are - Israel’s perfect partners in genocide

Over the last year, we have witnessed President Joe Biden elevate the U.S.-Israel “special relationship” to new heights. From replenishing Israel’s weapons stocks and shielding it from accountability on the international stage, to deploying U.S. assets and personnel in Israel’s defense, the Biden administration has gone above and beyond to ensure that Israel not only could sustain its unprecedented assault on Gaza, but that it wouldn’t have to bear the full cost of war.

Biden went into his reelection campaign wrestling with Donald Trump for the title of “Israel’s best friend” — a grotesque race to the bottom that has become a tradition during U.S. election seasons. So when the president ultimately decided to drop out, some were hopeful that Vice President Kamala Harris would release us from this downward spiral. They were soon disappointed.

Media outlets eagerly insisted that Harris seemed to show “greater understanding and empathy for Palestinians,” and surmised that such a difference in perspective might lead to a change in policy. But in the months since assuming the head of the Democratic ticket, 𝐇𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐬 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐦𝐚𝐝𝐞 𝐢𝐭 𝐜𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐬𝐡𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐞𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐨 𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐲 𝐨𝐧 𝐁𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧’𝐬 𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐢𝐜 𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐜𝐲 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐱𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬.

And while Israelis overwhelmingly favor Trump over Harris, and the former president certainly remains the preferred candidate among the country’s most extreme leaders, they might be missing the point. Because if you look past the partisan posturing, not only will Biden go down in history as Israel’s most consistent ally, but the strategy he and his fellow Democrats have embraced — masking their unconditional support for Israel behind a facade of concern for human rights — has played a crucial role in allowing Israel to get away with genocide for this long.

𝐁𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧, 𝐚 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐙𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐭

To be fair, America’s “special relationship” is much bigger than Biden. But when unconditional support of Israel became a threat to regional and US interests, past presidents — from Harry Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower, to Ronald Regan and George Bush Sr. — drew real red lines.

At 81, Biden is the oldest president in U.S. history, with a political career that spans over half a century — one that he built with the help of the pro-Israel lobby. He once boasted that he did “more fundraisers for AIPAC in the ’70s and early ’80s than just about … anybody,” and in turn the president has received more funding from the Israel lobby than any other U.S. politician since 1990.

With this support, Biden has learned that while the Israel lobby can lift political careers to unforeseen heights, it can just as easily destroy them: even the mildest criticism of Israeli policy risks unleashing the wrath of Israel’s influential apologists. The political costs of anything short of unconditional fealty to Israel are especially high during election seasons, and 2024 is no exception.

Biden considers the “special relationship” to be a critical pillar of America’s wider geostrategic priorities. From acting as a key ally during the Cold War to serving as a forward operating base for American power projection, protecting Israel has long occupied the epicenter of U.S. interests in the Middle East.

As he loves to remind us, though, Biden’s support for Israel has always been primarily driven by an ideological commitment to the Zionist project. “You don’t have to be a Jew to be a Zionist, and I am a Zionist,” Biden has repeatedly declared. “Were there no Israel, America would have to invent one.”

Biden came of age during Israel’s ascent, imbibing a one-sided barrage of myths that justified the state’s establishment at all costs. Around the family dinner table, Biden’s father, Joseph R. Biden Sr., would tell his son about the horrors of World War II, insisting that the only way to prevent a second Holocaust was to protect Israel above all else.

For Biden and his generation, Israel was an inspiring redemption story, and one in which Palestinians were entirely absent. That is why in Biden’s view, the Israelis killed on October 7 were “murdered,” “massacred,” and “not just killed, slaughtered.” But when describing the massacre of Palestinians, Biden embraces a different tone. “I have no notion that the Palestinians are telling the truth about how many people are killed. I’m sure innocents have been killed, and it’s the price of waging a war.”

Contrast Biden’s deep admiration for Israel with his evident disdain for Palestinians and Arabs, and we get a clear picture of the world view that informs his political decision making.

𝐖𝐞𝐚𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐳𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐡𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐦

𝐁𝐮𝐭 𝐛𝐞𝐲𝐨𝐧𝐝 𝐁𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧’𝐬 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐛𝐢𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐬, 𝐡𝐞, 𝐇𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐃𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐡𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐟𝐲 𝐚 𝐰𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐥𝐢𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐠𝐲: 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐮𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐨𝐮𝐬 𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐡𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐥𝐚𝐰 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐨-𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐝 “𝐫𝐮𝐥𝐞𝐬-𝐛𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐝” 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝 𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐫.

Over the past year, we have seen Biden and Harris weaponize these endearing traits of liberalism, leveraging them to distract from the reality that they are helping Israel carry out a genocide. In doing so, they have effectively deterred wider resistance to these policies at home, as well as international efforts to intervene.

A useful example of the consequences of this is the now infamous “humanitarian pier” that the Biden administration championed as a solution to get humanitarian aid past Israel’s blockade. The pier was a technical disaster, collapsing in turbulent water after failing to deliver aid and costing the U.S. taxpayer over $230 million. But what it did accomplish was to distract temporarily from the Biden administration’s refusal to use its ample leverage to compel Israel to stop restricting humanitarian aid to Gaza. In doing so, they bought Israel more time to starve the Strip.

For its part, mainstream media coverage has focused more on Biden’s toothless rhetoric and supposed “frustration” with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu than on his administration’s support for Israel’s war effort. In doing so, it created the impression that a change in Israeli tactics was always just one more harsh rebuke away, ignoring the glaring reality of U.S. complicity.

𝐖𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐞 𝐇𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐬 𝐦𝐚𝐲 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐛𝐨𝐫 𝐚𝐬 𝐦𝐮𝐜𝐡 𝐨𝐟 𝐁𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧’𝐬 𝐙𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐳𝐞𝐚𝐥, 𝐬𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝𝐥𝐲 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐬𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐮𝐞 𝐁𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧’𝐬 𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐝𝐚𝐥 𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐜𝐲. 𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐝𝐨𝐝𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐰𝐡𝐲 𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐚𝐝𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧’𝐬 “𝐭𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐬” 𝐞𝐟𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐚 𝐜𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐬𝐨 𝐟𝐚𝐫 𝐟𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐚𝐜𝐡 𝐰𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐝𝐢𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐁𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧’𝐬, 𝐇𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐬 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐡𝐞𝐫 “𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐈𝐬𝐫𝐚𝐞𝐥’𝐬 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐭𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟.”

𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐦𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐬𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝 𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐚 𝐯𝐚𝐠𝐮𝐞 𝐬𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐚𝐧, 𝐝𝐞𝐯𝐨𝐢𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐲 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐬. 𝐁𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐬 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐭 𝐚𝐬 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐛𝐞: 𝐇𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐮𝐞 𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐔.𝐒. 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐞𝐥𝐝 𝐈𝐬𝐫𝐚𝐞𝐥 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐢𝐧 𝐩𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐮𝐢𝐭 𝐨𝐟 “𝐈𝐬𝐫𝐚𝐞𝐥’𝐬 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐞” 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐤𝐞𝐞𝐩 𝐰𝐞𝐚𝐩𝐨𝐧 𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐟𝐥𝐨𝐰𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐈𝐬𝐫𝐚𝐞𝐥 𝐜𝐚𝐧 “𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐭𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟.” 𝐇𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐬’ 𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐫𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐜, 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐝𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐦𝐮𝐜𝐡 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐁𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧’𝐬, 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐛𝐞 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐚𝐬 𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐭𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠.

𝐀 ‘𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐫 𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐥’?

𝐌𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐨𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐚𝐝𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧’𝐬 𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐬𝐮𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐈𝐬𝐫𝐚𝐞𝐥 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐮𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭, 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩 𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞, 𝐁𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐇𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐬 𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 “𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐫 𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐥.” 𝐁𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐬 𝐛𝐨𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐭𝐲, 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐫𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐜 𝐨𝐧 𝐝𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐨𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐇𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐝𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧’𝐬 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐲 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐮𝐦𝐞, 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐛𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐎𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝟕, 𝐜𝐥𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐦𝐢𝐫𝐫𝐨𝐫𝐬 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐨𝐫’𝐬.

Since day one, the Biden administration has upheld Trump’s most controversial moves: keeping the U.S. embassy in Jerusalem, recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, failing to reopen the PLO mission in Washington, and desperately seeking normalization agreements between Israel and its Arab neighbors that erase Palestinians entirely. While Biden restored funding to UNRWA, his administration promptly cut it again under pressure from an Israeli smear campaign.

The only discernible policy difference has been Biden’s largely ineffectual sanctions campaign targeting Israeli settlers who continue to attack Palestinians throughout the West Bank. Meanwhile, the Biden administration has given Israel more financial and military assistance than any previous administration.

To this day, the biggest difference has been the rhetoric. But when Trump says that he would let Israel “finish the job” in Gaza, at least he is honest, making U.S. complicity impossible to ignore. Trump’s blunt, jarring racism — using “Palestinian” as a slur, for instance — creates a clear target. In contrast, Biden and Harris cloak their support for Israel behind the language of humanitarianism, lulling voters and activists into complacency while allowing Israel to “finish the job” anyway.

There is no doubt that thousands of Palestinians would be dead regardless of who occupied the Oval Office this past year. But given Trump’s notorious unpredictability, it is difficult, if not futile, to know exactly what the U.S. role in the genocide would have looked like.

Would a conservative, “America-first” Trump administration also have spent more on military aid to Israel than any previous administration, or rather have focused its energies on other foreign policy priorities like heightened competition with China? Since Trump doesn’t share Biden’s personal ideological commitment to Israel, would he have allowed Israel to extend its war across the region if it meant scuttling hopes of expanding the Abraham Accords to include Saudi-Israel normalization?

More importantly, if Trump had been president, would both domestic and international actors have been spurred to oppose Israel’s genocide and U.S. complicity more vigorously through calls for arms embargoes, sanctions, or divestment? Would the anti-genocide movement in the U.S. be so widely vilified, or could it have expanded to include a wide coalition of liberals and progressives, united in their opposition to Trump’s extremism?

There is no doubt that Democratic party loyalty has muted opposition to the Biden Administration’s complicity in genocide. And one could argue that the international community hasn’t felt the urgency to counterbalance Washington’s disregard for international law in the same way it might have if Trump had been flouting it.

𝐁𝐞𝐭𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐭 𝐞𝐱𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐦 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐲

After more than a year of a genocide that has been broadcasted across the globe in gruesome detail, we must ask ourselves what a wider, more politically diverse anti-genocide movement in both the U.S. and abroad, motivated by shared interests in unseating Trump, could have achieved. 𝐁𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐇𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐝𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐝𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐩𝐞𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐝𝐞 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐚 𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐜𝐲 — 𝐝𝐢𝐟𝐟𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐝𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐞𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐔.𝐒. 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐲.

This is not a plea to vote (or refrain from voting) for anyone. Democrats won’t “learn their lesson” by losing anti-genocide voters; instead, they’ll blame them for Trump’s victory and undermine efforts to build a broader, more effective movement for years to come. Nor should we downplay the consequences of Trump encouraging Israel to “finish the job” in Gaza, Lebanon, and Iran — even if it would merely represent an accelerated version of what Israel is doing now, with Biden’s tacit support. Trump has also made it clear that he will do everything in his power to step up bipartisan efforts to quell all pro-Palestine organizing.

𝘽𝙪𝙩 𝙬𝙚 𝙢𝙪𝙨𝙩 𝙧𝙚𝙘𝙤𝙜𝙣𝙞𝙯𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙞𝙨 𝙙𝙖𝙣𝙜𝙚𝙧 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙟𝙪𝙨𝙩 𝙞𝙣 𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙩 𝙚𝙭𝙩𝙧𝙚𝙢𝙞𝙨𝙢, 𝙗𝙪𝙩 𝙞𝙣 𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙛𝙤𝙧𝙢𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙚 𝙚𝙢𝙥𝙖𝙩𝙝𝙮 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙡𝙮 𝙥𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙚𝙧𝙫𝙚𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙩𝙪𝙨 𝙦𝙪𝙤. 𝘽𝙚𝙘𝙖𝙪𝙨𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙩𝙧𝙪𝙩𝙝 𝙞𝙨, 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙞𝙨 𝙣𝙤 “𝙡𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙚𝙧 𝙚𝙫𝙞𝙡.” And as we argue over this and obsess over the differences between administrations that share the same genocidal goals but employ different tactics, the pile of Palestinian and Lebanese bodies only grows.

-

Tariq Kenney-Shawa is a US Policy Fellow at Al-Shabaka, the Palestinian think tank and policy network. He holds a Master's degree in International Affairs from Columbia University and a Bachelor's degree in Political Science and Middle East Studies from Rutgers University. Tariq's research has focused on topics ranging from the role of narrative in both perpetuating and resisting occupation to analysis of Palestinian liberation strategies. His work has appeared in Foreign Policy, +972 Magazine, Newlines Magazine, and the New Politics Journal, among others. Twitter: @tksshawa.