Political Activism in the US: A First Step, But What’s Next for Palestine?

It is encouraging to see Muslims keep Palestine at the forefront of their political considerations in this election season. However, while elections provide a platform to voice support for Palestine, it’s vital to recognize that voting alone is not enough to bring about the meaningful change needed for the liberation of Palestine. The struggle for justice requires a more comprehensive approach that transcends election cycles.

In this article, we will explore the importance of political engagement beyond just voting, emphasizing the need for consistent grassroots efforts to create public opinion, both locally in America and globally within the Ummah. Only by coupling political action with a unified, global outlook can we begin to address the challenges faced by the Ummah. This moment demands that we put our differences aside and work together across different strategies, united in our ultimate goal.

While we work on various strategies that we believe to be the strongest, it’s essential to remember that true victory only comes from Allah (SWT)—it is simply a matter of Kun fa ya kun (Be, and it is).

Who to Vote For?

Many Muslim activists advocate voting for a third party, such as the Green Party, to "punish" the Democrats for their inaction on the Palestinian issue. The rationale is that by achieving 5% of the vote, a third party would qualify for state funding, creating stronger opposition to the two-party system in the future. The hope is to send a message that complicity in the occupation of Palestine and supporting Genocide will have electoral consequences.

It is claimed that this approach has raised concern among pro-Israel lobbying groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which wields significant influence in U.S. politics. AIPAC has been known to increase its financial support to U.S. politicians when Israel's interests are seen as threatened. In recent elections, AIPAC spent over $30 million to support pro-Israel candidates through its political action committee (PAC) and affiliated super PACs, including efforts to defeat progressive candidates who are critical of U.S. policy towards Israel, such as Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib.

However, historically, attempts to "punish" a major party by voting third-party have not always produced the desired outcomes. The influence of powerful lobbies like AIPAC often outweighs grassroots third-party efforts. One example is the 2000 U.S. Presidential election, Ralph Nader’s Green Party candidacy led to a significant vote split, particularly affecting Al Gore’s campaign, most notably in Florida. While Nader supporters aimed to send a message to the Democrats, it resulted in George W. Bush's election, with no substantial policy shifts from the Democrats afterward. A similar pattern was observed in the UK during the 1980s, where working-class voters shifted away from Labour in protest, only for the party to adopt more centrist policies under Tony Blair rather than returning to its left-wing roots.

On the other hand, some Muslims argue that it's more practical to vote for the winning party, keeping aside the issue of Palestine. While they may not fully align with the Democrat or Republican stance on Palestine, these voters hope that by supporting a major party, they might influence domestic policies more favorable to Muslims in the U.S. If nothing else, they reason, maintaining a working relationship with the party in power could lead to some local gains, even if it doesn't change foreign policy.

Decoding the Intricacies of U.S. Governance and Its Foreign Policy 

The governance of the United States is far more intricate than just the President or Congress, involving a network of institutional and external forces that shape policy, especially in foreign affairs. While the President holds executive power and Congress legislates, their influence is constrained by the "deep state" and various lobbying groups.

The "deep state" refers to entrenched bureaucrats within government agencies—military officials, intelligence operatives, and civil servants—who exert long-term influence regardless of elected leadership. These unelected officials often push back against policies that conflict with established norms, making it difficult for any president to fully control foreign policy or major decisions. For example, intelligence agencies and the military can resist or reshape foreign policy initiatives, which is often why policies toward countries like Palestine remain unchanged despite shifts in elected leadership.

Lobbies and interest groups, particularly corporate and special interest groups, also wield immense influence. AIPAC, for instance, is a powerful pro-Israel lobby that shapes U.S. policies toward the Middle East. Corporate lobbies, such as those representing defense contractors or the energy sector, further steer foreign policy, prioritizing economic and strategic interests over humanitarian concerns like Palestine. The Citizens United decision in 2010 amplified this, allowing unlimited political spending by corporations and groups, giving them even more sway over politicians.

This system shows that U.S. foreign policy, especially regarding Palestine, is driven not by party politics alone but by a combination of bureaucratic inertia, powerful lobbies, and long-standing strategic interests. Therefore, punishing one party in an election is unlikely to change the core policies that are deeply embedded in these powerful structures.

Why the U.S. Won’t (and Can’t) Abandon Israel

For some historical context, the creation of Israel was a strategic move to secure Western influence in the Middle East and prevent the revival of a unified Muslim power after the fall of the Ottoman Caliphate. Figures like Lord Balfour saw Israel as crucial for British imperial interests, particularly in safeguarding access to oil and the Suez Canal. Similarly, David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister, referred to Israel as a "loyal front base of the free world" in the region, reinforcing its role in Western geopolitical strategy.

Joe Biden has reiterated the strategic importance of Israel, stating that its existence is so crucial that "if there wasn’t an Israel, we’d have to invent one." This view was echoed by Henry Kissinger, who noted that Israel’s survival was a matter of U.S. national interest.

Additionally, Zbigniew Brzezinski (former US National Security Advisor) highlighted that the creation of Israel, alongside other Western policies, has kept the Arab world fragmented, preventing Muslim unity. Israel also serves as a buffer and a military outpost for the West, stabilizing the region in favor of U.S. and European interests, while consistently receiving military aid, peaking at $3.8 billion annually in recent agreements.

From a strategic military standpoint, Israel serves as a vital U.S. ally in the Middle East. Its military strength, advanced technology, and intelligence-sharing capabilities are indispensable to U.S. objectives in the region, particularly in countering threats from any surrounding nations. Israel’s stability in a volatile area ensures the U.S. has a reliable partner where alliances are often fragile or shifting.

Politically, support for Israel has been a bipartisan issue in the U.S. Congress for decades, backed strongly by influential lobbying groups like AIPAC, which ensure that Israel remains a priority in U.S. foreign policy. Politicians, too, are bound by the interests of key voting blocs, such as evangelical Christians, who view support for Israel as non-negotiable. Cutting ties with Israel could alienate these powerful groups, making it a risky move for any politician.

Moreover, the geopolitical consequences of abandoning Israel would be immense. It would signal weakness, embolden adversaries like Iran, and potentially destabilize the entire region, undermining U.S. influence. Allies in the Middle East, such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, might begin to doubt U.S. commitments, leading them to look elsewhere for partnerships, possibly to competitors like China or Russia.

In this context, Israel functions not as any nation-state but as a strategic linchpin for Western influence in the Middle East, ensuring the region remains divided and aligned with Western goals. The strategic, ideological and political stakes are too high for a fundamental shift in this relationship to occur.

A Global & Broader Outlook Towards Liberation

While engaging in the political system and advocacy could lead to shaping public opinion and shift the narrative on Palestine, it’s important to recognize that this alone won't pave a path to liberation.

The liberation of Palestine must be understood within the broader context of the Muslim world, with a focus on the geopolitical reality that surrounds it. While the Muslim-majority nations have the material capacity to confront Israel, their ability to act is hampered by rulers who prioritize their alliances with Western powers. These regimes, most of which uphold nation-state borders imposed by colonial powers, fragment the Muslim world and prevent any action in defense of Palestine.

Despite their verbal condemnations of Israel, many of these Muslim countries actively shield Israel by failing to take meaningful steps that could pressure it. For example, Egypt, which controls the Rafah crossing, could easily open its borders to allow vital aid into Gaza. Yet it continues to restrict this lifeline, citing security concerns. Similarly, Jordan, which shares borders with both Israel and Palestine, has continued to allow goods to flow into Israel. While it has the ability to cut off these land routes, it prioritizes maintaining trade agreements with Israel, which only strengthens Israel’s economy.

Turkey is another country that, while claiming to support the Palestinian cause, continues to allow the flow of oil through its territories to Israel. Oil originating from Azerbaijan and other regional suppliers passes through Turkish pipelines en route to Israel, which depends on these energy supplies to fuel its military and economy. If Turkey were to halt this flow of oil, it could apply significant economic pressure on Israel, yet the Turkish government remains reluctant to act.

Furthermore, countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE have taken steps toward normalizing relations with Israel, as seen in their involvement in the Abraham Accords. These agreements have led to increased trade and political cooperation between these countries and Israel, legitimizing its occupation in the eyes of the global community. Despite the ongoing Genocide, neither Saudi Arabia nor the UAE has made any move to cut ties or withdraw recognition of Israel, let alone making a move to Liberate the blessed Land.

Even Pakistan, which has historically supported the Palestinian cause (atleast verbally), has not prioritized Palestine in its recent actions. Over the past few days, while the situation in Gaza worsened, Pakistan has been conducting military exercises with other Muslim nations as part of the Indus Shield 2024. This reflects a broader trend among Muslim-majority nations to prioritize their national interests or alliances with Western powers over the defense of Palestine.

Salahuddin Ayyubi offers a powerful example of how the Muslim Ummah can unite. Before liberating Palestine, Salahuddin focused on breaking the internal divisions that fragmented the Muslim world. He worked to unify the Muslim states, breaking down the political and territorial barriers that weakened the Ummah. Once united, the liberation of Palestine was swift, taking just over a year.

Today, Palestine remains occupied not because of Israel’s strength, but because of the disunity and complicity of surrounding Muslim nations. If these countries were to look beyond their narrow nationalistic interests and truly act in defense of Palestine—by opening borders, cutting off trade, halting oil supplies, and severing diplomatic ties—Israel’s occupation could not last. Time and again, history has proven that Israel is weak by itself; it is these Muslim nations that act as a protective shield for it.

To truly liberate Palestine, it is essential for the Muslim world to break away from these secular, nationalist agendas and restore governance based on Islamic principles, which will restore dignity to the Ummah as a whole. This is not just a strategic solution, but a religious obligation. Just as Salahuddin succeeded through unity, the Muslim world today must realize that true liberation will only come by placing Allah’s commands at the forefront and acting in the collective interest of the Ummah.

Our role in America

Living in America, our role in addressing the Palestinian crisis begins with raising awareness, but it’s crucial to go beyond the generic understanding of this term. When people talk about "raising awareness," it often remains at a surface level, focusing on broad goals like informing the local population or pressuring politicians. While this is important, we need to expand our understanding of awareness in a more nuanced and strategic way.

The local population, especially Americans who may not fully grasp the intricacies of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, need to understand how their tax dollars fund policies that perpetuate the occupation and violence in Palestine. Billions of U.S. tax dollars are funneled into military aid to Israel each year, money that could otherwise be spent on domestic issues like healthcare and education. Raising awareness in this group means focusing on the humanitarian consequences of this funding, highlighting how it contributes to the oppression and genocide of Palestinians.

However, while raising awareness among the local public and politicians is vital, an even more critical task is raising awareness within the global Muslim Ummah, particularly the Muslim nations that have the power to bring real change.

We must raise awareness among the Muslim masses, scholars, influential figures, politicians, armies, and ruling classes of Muslim-majority countries about the real solution to this crisis—one that requires breaking free from secular, nationalist ideologies that have kept the Muslim world defunct and divided. These nationalist and secular regimes serve Western interests and are complicit in shielding Israel from meaningful opposition. Muslim scholars and leaders in these regions need to be reminded of their duty to speak out against these governments and demand that they take concrete steps to liberate Palestine. Influential voices across the Muslim world must lead public discussions, calling for a political shift toward Islamic governance that places the Rida of Allah swt as a central goal over their political gains.

To achieve this, we must leverage all available resources—social media, connections back home, alternative media platforms, and written advocacy—to amplify our message. Only through a comprehensive and unified effort can we truly raise awareness and mobilize support for the Palestinian cause, both in America and across the global Muslim Ummah.

In conclusion, the change brought about by establishing a governance rooted in the justice of Allah swt will not only liberate Palestine but also restore justice and dignity to Muslims and non-Muslims across the world. 

Allah swt says “This Quran has been revealed to bring mankind out of the darkness into light” (Quran 14:1).