Politics

The Uncommitted Movement’s weird quasi-endorsement of Kamala Harris, explained

Published

2 years ago

November 12, 2024

The Uncommitted Movement’s weird quasi-endorsement of Kamala Harris, explained

The Uncommitted Movementthe group that helped organize the casting of hundreds of thousands of uncommitted ballots in the Democratic presidential primaries to pressure the party to change its position on supporting Israel, announced Thursday that it will not be endorsing Kamala Harris’ presidential campaign. In the same announcement, however, the group also called for the movement to vote against former President Donald Trump and to avoid third parties.

In other words, Uncommitted effectively criticized Harris as fundamentally problematic on Israel policy while simultaneously encouraging people to vote for her.

The announcement marks a concession that the group is weak — but also that it wants to stay in the game in the long run.

The seemingly contradictory recommendations are bound to anger plenty of progressives upset by the Biden administration’s policies on Israel. But it adds up to a largely coherent strategic position, based on an assessment of the limited power of the pro-Palestinian movement at this juncture and the correct appraisal that Trump would make the situation in Gaza even worse. I’d say the announcement marks a concession that the group is weak — but also that it wants to stay in the game in the long run in the hope to one day shape the Democratic Party’s policies on the issue.

In its announcement of its non-endorsement, the Uncommitted Movement cited its dissatisfaction over Harris’ declining its request to meet with Palestinian Americans in Michigan who have lost loved ones in the Gaza Strip and discuss their demands for an arms embargo on Israel and how to pursue a cease-fire deal. This came after the Democrats refused to invite any Palestinian Americans to speak at the main stage at the Democratic National Convention about the war in Gaza, despite the presence of dozens of Democratic delegates affiliated with the Uncommitted Movement and their vigorous lobbying for a speaker on the issue. (By contrast, the DNC gave a speaking slot to the parents of an Israeli American hostage, who was tragically killed after the convention.) Harris did briefly meet with two members of the Uncommitted Movement in early August but reportedly declined to commit to a longer meeting about arms restrictions on Israel. Alongside all of this, Harris has deployed rhetoric about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that signals a continuation of the policy status quo and sternly reprimanded pro-Palestinian protesters who disrupted one of her events.

“Vice President Harris’s unwillingness to shift on unconditional weapons policy or to even make a clear campaign statement in support of upholding existing U.S. and international human rights law has made it impossible for us to endorse her,” the group said in a new statement.

At the same time, the statement argued, Trump would be worse for Palestinians in the Gaza Strip because he would “accelerate the killing in Gaza while intensifying the suppression of anti-war organizing.” For this reason, the group states, Uncommitted supporters should vote against Republicans “up and down the ballot” and avoid third-party candidates who could “inadvertently boost” Trump’s chances.

The Uncommitted Movement’s attempt to thread a needle here is awkward. Its statement is, all in the same breath, a complaint about Democrats and also a de facto soft endorsement of them. Some activists will object to the Uncommitted Movement voluntarily giving up its leverage over the Democratic Party, out of the belief that holding out on an endorsement announcement might’ve resulted in some concessions from Harris with another month and a half to go until Election Day. Still others — some of them likely out of the belief that Harris probably won’t signal any policy changes on a hot button issue unless she wins office — will say the Uncommitted Movement’s mealy-mouthed quasi-endorsement is riskier than articulating a clear position that Trump is the biggest imminent threat to Palestinian life.

But the Uncommitted Movement’s overall posture should be familiar to anyone on the left who thinks about the hard reality of voting in America: Even on issues on which Democrats are not good, or are even downright terrible, Republicans are often worse. That’s certainly true in this case. The Biden administration’s effectively unconditional aid to Israel has been morally indefensible and catastrophic for Palestinian civilian life. But Trump would in all likelihood embolden Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu even more than President Joe Bidenintensify Israel’s brutal domination of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, and revel in brutal repression of protesters at home.

I do think the Uncommitted Movement could have waited longer to issue a statement — perhaps until some time in October, to test Harris more and capitalize on a potential upswing in protests over the issue. But ultimately I’m sympathetic to its attempt to balance values with strategic efficacy. The non-endorsement allows the group to credibly identify potential positive policy changes in the future, since an endorsement would’ve squandered that claim to specific judgment of politicians’ policy positions. At the same time, the voting guidance correctly counsels the movement to think about minimizing harm for Palestinians, seeking the best possible activist terrain in the medium- to long-term future, and choosing to organize against politicians who could conceivably be influenced. It also marks a recognition that the Democratic Party has made it clear that its strategy is to ignore the pro-Palestinian movementknowing that the movement has lost significant momentum with Harris’ nomination and data indicating the war in Gaza is not a top tier issue even for most young voters.

In its statement, the Uncommitted Movement argues that the antiwar movement must try make inroads into the Democratic Party and develop coalitions that contest the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s significant influence on the party on Israel policy. That’s an important long-term goal. For the time being, the best hope the antiwar movement has is to keep up the pressure on the party through a fierce protest movement that demands that Democrats put and end to their abominable disregard for life in the Gaza Strip.

Zeeshan Aleem

Zeeshan Aleem is a writer and editor for BLN Daily. Previously, he worked at Vox, HuffPost and Blue Light News, and he has also been published in, among other places, The New York Times, The Atlantic, The Nation, and The Intercept. You can sign up for his free politics newsletter here.

Politics

Support for Iran’s team – but not for regime

Published

8 hours ago

June 22, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

LOS ANGELES — The political tensions surrounding Iran’s national soccer team were on full display Sunday at SoFi Stadium, where Iranian American fans loudly booed during the playing of Iran’s national anthem before the team’s World Cup match against Belgium.

Among the crowd were several supporters displaying Iran’s pre-revolution Lion and Sun flag, a symbol associated with opposition to the current regime. FIFA prohibits the flag inside tournament venues, but some fans carried it anyway — and at least one supporter waved it during the anthem in an act of defiance.

Conversations with Iranian American fans at the stadium in Inglewood revealed a consistent message: Their protests were directed at Iran’s government, not at the players representing the country on the field. An Iranian American man from Seattle who gave his name as Majid said that he appreciated the opportunity to “confront the tyrannies that are happening.”

“Iran is hostage for the past 47 years or so to a regime that is promoting terrorism and chaos in the region,” he said. “For the team, we support them. But the anthem, the flag — we don’t support it.”

That distinction was evident throughout the match, which ended in a scoreless draw. While the anthem drew intense jeers, Iranian players received loud cheers on corner kicks and takeaways.

The game, held amid U.S.-Iran talks to end the monthslong war between the two countries, was the second of two matches Iran played in Los Angeles, home to the largest Iranian community outside of Iran. Both ended in draws.

Politics

‘Don’t count on me to say bad words’

Published

9 hours ago

June 21, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

The French minister for sports, Marina Ferrari, was in New York City to support her national team, which will play its second match tomorrow against Iraq. On Monday, she dropped by the French consulate across from Central Park for an event organized by Business France to discuss the opportunities this year’s three-country World Cup represents for French and American companies.

Panelists included French Football Federation President Philippe Diallo, New York City Economic Development Corporation interim CEO Jeanny Pak and representatives from the NFL and the New Orleans Saints, which are playing the first ever professional (American) football game in France this fall at a stadium in the Paris suburbs.

In prepared remarks, Ferrari talked about Franco-American cooperation, not just for major sporting events, but also for America’s 250th anniversary.

“France will be, as it always has been, at your side,” she said.

In an interview afterwards, Ferrari answered questions in English about politically outspoken French footballers, Qatari influence in French sports and the beautiful game being divided into quarters by TV commercials during World Cup “hydration breaks.”

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

What do you think of football becoming a four-quarter sport instead of a sport of halves? Are the Europeans concerned that this World Cup has made it into a four-quarter sport?

In France, we have been working with the broadcaster and they took the engagement not to put advertising during those pauses. For us, it’s important. When we organize in the future such a competition — with the weather and with the climate change — we will have to adapt the competition. So I understand clearly why those times now exist, but in France we take care about not pushing so much advertising during this time.

You talked about sports uniting. What do you think of Kylian Mbappé and others on the team taking stances against the far right?

I think a player is a citizen like anyone, so they can express their feelings, their political views, or their opinions. It is not forbidden — but, while playing, stop when you are wearing the shirt of France. But I think they are free to do that.

Paris 2024 was such a successful Olympics. What have you talked to Americans about to pull off a World Cup and an Olympics? And how are you meeting that same level for the Winter Olympics in 2030?

I think that we’ve got to think together about the future of these Olympic Games in winter, because you know, with the climate change, having snow in the future is more and more uncertain. So we’ve got to think, how do we produce snow in the future without taking water from the consumption of the citizens. So we have a lot to do on that, because in the future I think that only a few countries will be able to organize again [Winter] Olympics and Paralympics, so we’ve got really to create a new model, a sober model for the future and for the next generation.

Are you concerned about Qatari dominance of French domestic football, given the country’s sovereign wealth funds ownership of champion club Paris Saint-Germain?

We are proud of having Paris Saint Germain. I hear this bad buzz, blah blah blah, the investors, etc. I think we are lucky to have such a club, so don’t count on me to say bad words.