On the 2024 Presidential Election
by Jonathan Kuttab
The upcoming presidential election presents a serious ethical dilemma for people concerned with peace and justice in Palestine/Israel. This is particularly true for US citizens living in one of the seven battleground states, where we are told our vote actually matters, and in a close election like this one could actually determine who is going to be the next president of the US and direct its foreign policy.
For many, it is morally repugnant to vote for a candidate and a party who has not only been complicit in the ongoing genocide, but who has actively supported and protected its perpetrators from the consequences of their crimes. No other administration has been so directly responsible for this genocide, and their candidate has spurned several opportunities to distinguish her position from that of President Biden, or to make even symbolic gestures towards the Arab and Muslim American community. Like President Biden, she says she wants the war to end, while meanwhile fully supporting, funding, arming, and protecting Israel and its “right to defend itself.” Can one in good conscience vote for her, or give her their support? Or, must one take a firm prophetic stand against that evil, come what may? Are we truly responsible for the political outcome of the US elections, or are we only responsible for casting our vote ethically? A pragmatic approach that seeks a desirable political outcome even while betraying core principles is indeed a slippery slope we must be wary of.
On the other hand, we are told, failure to vote for her or even a vote for a third party is the equivalent of a vote for Donald Trump. That candidate who seems to embody Christian nationalism, racism, misogyny, xenophobia, and Islamophobia surely does not deserve our vote either. We cannot forget his policies on trying to create a Muslim ban, or the fact that Netanyahu, AIPAC, Adelson, and their ilk are fully supportive of his candidacy and believe he can provide them with greater leeway to conduct their ongoing genocide and perhaps close off forever any possibility of a peaceful solution. An argument made is that bad as things are under Biden, they could even be worse under Trump. Also, even apart from the Palestine/Israel question, Trump represents a danger to democracy, the environment, women, and all minorities. He represents a danger to the whole world.
So, how do we handle this dilemma? It is a classic binary choice of the type attempted by the religious leaders and scribes to force Jesus to face, even as hypotheticals. I have previously written about the dangers of binary thinking and how Jesus never accepted the framing of a question that presented him with two clearly objectionable choices. I am reminded here of Rev. Munther Isaac’s saying that he is more interested in what happens with the encampments on college campuses in September than at the ballot Boxes in November. The struggle for justice and peace continues in full force regardless of who sits in the White House, and perhaps we need a little humility as to our abilities to affect outcomes. The media hype implying that our vote is so vital may be overstating its case.
The early church faced a similar dilemma when it came to eating meat (which could possibly have been offered first to the heathen gods). As described in 1 Corinthians 8: 1-12, some of the early Christians took a principled ethical stand and refrained from eating all meat altogether. Others thought that since only the true God exists, that idols and pagan gods are not real, then there is no compunction about eating such meat, secure in their superior knowledge that their conscience is clear. Paul, however, was more concerned with the impact that such division had on the life of the church and on the attitude of Christians to one another. After considering the merits of both positions, he concluded that Christians need to be cognizant of the feelings of others with whom they disagreed. Those who refrained should not be judgmental against those who ate meat, and those who ate meat, in good conscience, should not be contemptuous of those who abstained.
By the same token, we need to respect one another. Those who hold their noses and vote for Kamala Harris and those who decide to send a resounding message by refusing to vote for her, even when Trump is on the other side of the ballot, need to respect each other and value their spiritual and moral commitment to one another and to the victims of the American empire. Feel free to respectfully share your thoughts with us on this complex topic.
In Memoriam
Gustavo Gutiérrez (1928 - 2024)
Written by FOSNA Development Director John Noble
When I heard about the passing of Gustavo Gutiérrez, I thought back to my only in-person encounter with him at a University of Notre Dame conference in 2019. I had meekly approached Gutiérrez to ask if he would sign a book, and I attempted in very broken Spanish to ask him a question about the particular book I was holding out with shaking hands. Laughing, he told me two things with a twinkle in his eye: that my analysis of the book was pretty inaccurate, and that my attempt at Spanish was quite poor.
When I recently recounted this story to Jonathan Kuttab, he also laughed and said, “well, that’s what prophets are meant to do: tell the truth!”
And as all of us who have been inspired by liberation theology, all of us who have imperfectly committed our lives to its principles of solidarity, know, Gutiérrez was a truth teller of the highest order. He told the truth about how the systems of capitalism, colonialism, imperialism and racism wreak havoc on the lives of poor and oppressed people around the world. And he did so because he believed in God’s universal, and preferential, love.
I often think of a quote from Gutiérrez that convicts and challenges me in my daily failures to be in solidarity with my neighbors: “You say you care about the poor? Then tell me, what are their names?”
In his 2020 booklet Liberation Theology as a Test for Authentic Religion, Palestinian theologian and Sabeel founder Rev. Dr. Naim Ateek quoted his friend Gustavo Gutiérrez:
"Universal love is that which in solidarity with the oppressed seeks also to liberate the oppressors from their own power, from their ambition, and from their selfishness…But this cannot be achieved except by resolutely opting for the oppressed, that is, by combatting the oppressive class.”
Imagine this love, the love of our loving God that Gustavo Gutiérrez knew in his mind and his heart, applied to our current context. Imagine if our hubris, our patriarchal arrogance, our violence, our churches’ complicity with US empire, was dismantled brick-by-brick. Imagine if we replaced our white supremacist hunger for power, ambition, and selfishness with a desire to opt for the oppressed, to combat the oppressive class and to erase oppression itself. Palestinians would be free. We would all be free.