What do Gazan civilians have to do to qualify for greater support from the DNC?

Politics & Elections
1

On the surface, one would think Gazan civilians fit the criteria of everything that ought to get the sympathy or support of the DNC:

  • Collateral damage (civilians) being killed - check
  • Hospitals being bombed - check
  • An underdog being run over by an upper-dog (for lack of a better term) - check
  • Journalists, aid workers killed - check
  • Children being killed - check
  • Racial minority being killed - check (yes, Arabs are not a minority in the Middle East, but they are in America, and the Arab-Americans lobbying on behalf of Gaza are a U.S. minority)
  • Significant, large number being killed - check
  • A starvation and humanitarian crisis - check

Yet, up to this point, the stance of nearly all DNC/leadership Democrats has been….less than enthusiastic. It’s like the DNC believes the Gazans haven’t yet met some threshold needed to qualify for support. Indeed, when Kamala was confronted about this on the election trail last year, her response was not to vow support for Gaza, but to retort to pro-Gaza protesters, “If you want Donald Trump to win, then say that (the pro-Gaza chants they were chanting).”

What more could the Gazans do, or need to do, in order to “qualify”? Do they need to suffer certain types of death to gain greater sympathy (for instance, being killed by bombs may be dismissed as just being battle-type deaths, but deaths from chemical weapons or torture would cross the line?) Do they need to reach a certain threshold of deaths - i.e., 200,000 civilians killed instead of just 60,000?)

2

Right now, the DNC isn’t giving any support because they don’t have any support to give. What do you expect the party with absolutely no power to do?

3

What good does being endorsed by the DNC give them? It would be like being endorsed by the Kiwanis Club. Nobody would care.

4

They could, at least, speak 10x more forcefully on the issue. And during the entire year of 2024 when they did hold all the power, they did relatively little. It’s really an excuse to say “When we had power we did nothing, and now we have less power we’ll say we have less power.”

Anyway, that’s not my point - my point is, what does the DNC think Gazans need to do, that they are not currently doing (or suffering?) Clearly, there is some sort of sympathy-threshold or support-threshold that the Gazans have so far failed to meet. I’m just asking what that criteria is. But, based off of the long list I gave, it’s hard to think of any items that have not been checked.

I do know that in 2013, for instance, Obama set a “red line” for chemical use in Syria (warning the Assad regime not to use nerve gas,) so, clearly, there is a red line somewhere. But Israel is not likely to ever use WMDs in Gaza.

5

Why is this being asked only about the DNC?

Why not the RNC?

6

I’m not sure what the DNC has to do with this. I was under the impression that what they did was prop up Democratic politicians.

7

If we’re talking about an official party platform, well that’s a can of worms for Democrats.
I agree that this country should be doing far more to try and mediate the disastrous situation, and attempt to find a way for everyone involved or affected to live in peace where they are.
I am not a politician.

8

…because according to all recent polling that what people who support the Democrats want them to do.

Because as Mamdani is demonstrating in New York, support for Palestinians in Gaza can be popular and can win them votes.

Because in a political system where realistically only two parties matter, and where statistically often elections turn on the margins, the Democrats need to get as many people out to vote as they can. But if BOTH political parties support the genocidal campaign being waged in Gaza right now: then people are not going to come out to vote for them.

Because Biden and his regime are every bit as responsible for what is happening in Gaza right now.

Because genocide is bad, and because the Democrats are supposed to be the “good guys”, so one would expect the RNC to be on the bad-guys side here, but one would expect the Democrats to be on the side of good.

Because Palestinians are people, and they deserve to be able to live, and we all should stop acting like they are less deserving to live, because we conflate Palestinians with the people that committed the atrocities on October the 7th.

Because we are witnessing a genocide, in the West Bank we are witnessing ethnic cleansing, and because the history books will not think fondly of those that supported the genocide, and the Democrats should try to get on the right side of history.

9

Who cares what the DNC, a largely useless and archaic institution, thinks? Democratic leadership in congress pretty much always lags changing opinion from their party membership. Make this doubly slow, perhaps, based on the very longstanding pro-Israel bent of the party at large, as well as so many of its wealthy donors. This is obviously changing significantly, but IMO we won’t really see any of it until the party gets some power back (like at least one half of congress), and we won’t see much more than symbolism until the next presidential primary. I think it’s almost certain the next Democratic candidate for president will be anti-Likud, anti-genocide, and pro human rights for Palestinians.

10

Demonstrations of support for Gazans would be immediately pounced on by Trumpists as support for Hamas and their attack(s) on Israel. Trumpists control most of the media (or have it cowed) and they yell very loud, are good at simplistic slogans, and the cult is in on the deal. The situation is a complete mess with the leaders on both all sides locked into their positions so they can:
stay out of prison
distract, distract, distract
not be killed immediately
not appear weak
not get branded weak

11

That will happen no matter what Democrats do. Might as well try to do the right thing.

12

No mainstream politician is going to come out in favor of genocide, and it is nice to say they support civilians in Gaza since words are cheap, but why in the world would the DNC give them money? How about Masalit civilians in Darfur? What do they have to do to qualify for greater support? Etc. None of those people vote in the U.S.A. I am deliberately being cynical, but since when do American (and other) political parties get involved that way? Mind you, it is easy enough to say one does not support genocide. But do not hold your breath for things like, say, massive sanctions against Israel on the part of the US or EU.

13

…because the Democrat approval rating recently has been through the toilet.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/07/26/democrats-approval-rating-poll-00478141

Because the Democrats lost control of the Supreme Court, and at the last election lost the House, the Senate and the Presidency.

Because if the Democrats continue to stand for nothing, they will continue to lose everything. And if the base is saying “this is a genocide, stop funding the perpetrators” but Democrat leadership continue to ignore them, thats going to have consequences. It probably did have consequences at the last election. It absolutely WILL have consequences at the next round of elections.

And this isn’t just about Gaza. Absolutely this should be about the Masalit civilians in Darfur. And if you look at what the politicians who HAVE been outspoken on Gaza…they have also been outspoken on the Sudan.

There is a moral consistency there. Some backbone. And it doesn’t end there. Why did so many Democrat states go all in on “cop cities?” Why are people like Gavin Newsom having people like the late Charlie Kirk on his podcast, or rolling up his sleeves and helping to demolish homeless camps?

And just on a tangent: would we even dare have this conversation if it were about what the Nazis were doing in World War Two?

Imagine saying “No mainstream politician is going to come out in favor of genocide, and it is nice to say they support civilians in the Warsaw Ghetto since words are cheap, but why in the world would the DNC give them money?”

This isn’t a personal dig at you, but I’m still flabbergasted at the casual way Palestinians are treated as if they are somehow just a tad less worthy. America are funding this genocide. Both the Republicans and most of the Democrat leadership support it. Yet again at the United Nations, America was the sole vote at the Security Council in opposition to the ceasefire resolution.

The people who vote for the Democrats are signalling they want this to end. The Democrat leadership aren’t listening. They aren’t listening on a number of different issues. But they do listen to the donors.

Authoritarianism is here. At some stage, the Democrats will either have to join the fight or step aside.

14

This is the answer. Think about it for two seconds, right? It’s another quagmire in the Middle East. It isn’t a top-of-mind issue for voters. It’s a wedge the GOP pounded on with great success so there is division in the party about it. I think nearly every day I’m reading another story about how pro-Palestinian protestors ruined someone’s parade or event. They probably fear opposition research finding pro-terrorism comments from whoever becomes the champion on the issue.

And what solution can they offer? Accepting more refugees? Almost certainly unpopular with voters. BDS? That’s abandoning an important ally and democracy in the region. Rebuild Gaza? Gonna get called “nation building.”

15

I am not sure the gulf between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party is as wide as you think, when it comes to their stance on authoritarianism, dismissing Palestinians and other groups, or on listening to donors. As @What_Exit posted, this could be asked about the RNC too. Not a good thing. I just disagree with your impression that

Maybe some politicians are, and they joined that party because they are not going to get very far as independent politicians, but you cannot make that generalization.

16

…I’m arguing the gulf isn’t that wide at all.

LOL.

I don’t think the Democrats are the good guys. That’s why I put “good guys” in quotes.

They are IMHO, as another thread put it, the “lesser evil.”

Absolutely.

The UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel released a report this week that concluded “Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.” Here’s that report:

https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/09/israel-has-committed-genocide-gaza-strip-un-commission-finds

If America doesn’t want to abandon an “important ally” that is currently committing a genocide, then America is a danger to the free world and democracy.

The US government should be doing MUCH more than “BDS.”

I’d settle for them telling their “most important ally” to stop destroying Gaza. That’s the very least they could do.

17

is the OP saying DNC as a substitute for “Democrats?” If not I don’t think they know what role the DNC has and what it’s allowed to have under current funding laws. I’m not sure what kind of support you are looking for from the committee.

18

Yeah, it brings me no joy to say this but the Americans who care more about people dying overseas than the price of eggs are a minority.

I think the conventional wisdom that voters from this minority disproportionately care about Israel is not as true as it was decades ago for a multitude of reasons, and we have a lot of old people in US politics in general and in the Democratic party who haven’t adjusted yet. To some degree this is because past generations of voters voted in genuine ideological Zionists and they haven’t voted them out yet, and to some degree it’s because people who are just going to take the positions that give them the most votes have a tendency to do what’s worked in the past and the perception for years has been that adopting pro-Palestinian stances is a vote loser. To the extent that this is wrong it’s apparently not wrong enough for most of the incumbents to lose, including safe democrats losing primaries.

I think a lot of Americans including American Jews to whom having a Jewish state is important and who have been consistent supporters of Israel are appalled by Netanyahu. I’m sure I’m to the left of most of them and view Netanyahu’s corruption, the rise of extreme nationalists in the country and their horrific attacks directed at civilian populations are the endgame to the nationalist project that has been there from the start. My (not data backed) impression is that many people are appalled by this current Israeli but haven’t necessarily changed their views on America’s relationship with Israel long-term. I don’t think realistically anyone is going to be able to get a clean sample of how much this matter electorally when most Americans who know who Netanyahu is already have a strong opinion about the authoritarian takeover at home, and for democrats whether their party is failing as an opposition.

19

Kind of. I couldn’t think of a suitable term for Democratic leadership, Democratic Party policy, that would not reflect the rank and file (since many rank and file Democrats at the low level do oppose what’s happening in Gaza) that wouldn’t make the thread title too sprawling long.

20

I think you mean Schumer and Jeffries (and other long-standing institutionalist Democrats in congress), then. And the answer for them appears to be basic petty “corruption”, that is, allegiance to wealthy, pro-Likud donors, as well as the inertia of longstanding favor for the Israeli government over Palestinians.