Notably absent from Walz’s speech was any real substance on foreign policy — including discussion of the genocide happening against Palestinians in Gaza, which uncommitted delegates and their allies have been trying to discuss for days at DNC. Indeed, most of the night, if not the week, has ignored the issue, and where it has been mentioned, Israel’s role in the genocide has been glossed over.
Uncommitted delegates in support of Palestinian liberation and an end to the genocide have requested that the DNC allow a Palestinian speaker take the podium in the United Center, to discuss a permanent ceasefire and an embargo for weapons from the U.S. to Israel, which the U.S. is legally obligated to do.
“We are learning that Israeli hostages’ families will be speaking from the main stage. We strongly support that decision and also strongly hope that we will also be hearing from Palestinians who’ve endured the largest civilian death toll since 1948,” read a statement from the Uncommitted National Movement account on X. "Excluding a Palestinian speaker betrays the party’s commitment in our platform to valuing Israelis and Palestinian lives equally. Vice President Harris must unite this party with a vision that fights for everyone, including Palestinians."
A group of uncommitted delegates, joined by interfaith leaders and their allies, staged a sit-in just outside the convention hall on Wednesday night, saying they wouldn’t remove themselves from that spot until their demands for a Palestinian speaker were met.
The goal is a ceasefire. When we are arming one side, Israel, that uses our weapons to eradicate the other side, Palestinians; a ceasefire means to stop providing the weapons used for genocide. Conditional military aid, conditional on Israel abiding by international laws and not committing war crimes and crimes against humanity.
That is the moral position. That is also popular, and a great way for Harris to gain support and momentum. In general but also critically in key states.
If you see Palestinians as equals, I don't get why you're arguing against the people advocating for their voice instead of being an advocate
If the goal is a ceasefire, commonly defined as a bilateral end of hostilities, then you should encourage and reward the administration's attempts to secure a ceasefire.
If the goal is to stop arming Israel, then Americans overall do not sufficiently support this goal right now. That means this goal will take years to achieve.
If you want to help Palestinians, then you should be realistic about what you can achieve and how long it will take.
40-100 thousand people have died while they fail to pressure Israel to agree to the ceasefire. Americans overall do, you don't.
MLK had patience, which that quote exemplifies. It took the civil rights movement years to see any results.
MLK hated people like you who told him to be patient, that he was too radical and that he was trying to change America too quickly or that his protests were hurting LBJ’s re-election campaign. He wrote long diatribes against this idea and people who told him he was moving too fast, go read his anger in Letters from a Birmingham Jail.
Don’t misquote him like that.
Edit: Why We Can’t Wait was the actual title of his 1964 book. King’s “Letter” issues a call for urgency. He wrote it as a response to eight local white clergymen who had criticized his activities in Birmingham and appealed for a more patient and restrained approach to lobbying for civil rights. The “Letter” expresses King’s deep disappointment with “the white moderate,” who “paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom.” https://sojo.net/articles/when-patience-becomes-complacency-why-we-cant-wait
Whether he liked it or not, it took years for the civil rights movement to see any results. The same is true of every other successful activist movement.
We’ve already been waiting years. Stop being so condescending. If you’re actually on our side like you claim, you could show empathy rather than telling us grieving people that we’re not being patient enough. Again, MLK hated people who said that to his coalition. Have you read his stuff yet?
Empathy for American activists doesn't help Palestinians. If anything, American activists are often counterproductive. Telling the DNC to fuck off doesn't bring your goals any closer to reality.
And you don't speak for MLK.
Nice strawman. I think we’re done here if you can’t even be honest.
Edit: April 16, 1963, King wrote his most famous “Letters from a Birmingham jail” in response to eight local white clergymen who had criticized his activities in Birmingham and appealed for a more patient and restrained approach to lobbying for civil rights. The “Letter” expresses King’s deep disappointment with “the white moderate,” who “paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom.”
The strawman is that activists should be more "restrained". I never said that.
You can be as fervent as you want. It will still take years to get results. So buckle up.
And if you don't want to make friends with politicians then it will take even longer. MLK at least didn't burn his bridges in Congress.
MLK publicly fought with LBJ over his watering down of the Civil Rights Act. LBJ supporters accused him of Potentially derailing his election the same way Democrats today accused Palestine protesters of derailing Biden. History isn’t as rosy as you pretend it is, learn your history since MLK publicly castigated those “allies” in his famous Letter, historically burning those bridges that you claim we need to build.
I’m not going to keep repeating myself since you refuse to even look at what’s historical record and have you keep abusing MLK’s name to fit your ahistorical claims just like Republicans do. This goes far beyond MLK, as far back as the Abolitionist movement which also didn’t try making friends and compromises in the face of moral depravity.
This is how a successful activist operates. Not "fuck the racist White House that has failed to pass the civil rights act".
Oh look you finally started to read what MLK said, how many times did I ask? But you conveniently ignored the one source I kept pointing to and cited something unrelated. Darn these facts getting in the way of your opinion, amirite?
This may blow your mind but MLK said both things at different times. Both to pressure LBJ and try to drive public opinion. One didn’t invalidate the other. You’re intentionally missing my point. I’m done.
He said the right thing at the right time. And when he wanted LBJs support, he said he supported LBJ.
You seem to think MLK never spoke again after writing the letter you cite over and over.
Do you even know who MLK openly supported in the 1964 election?