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.

  • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    I knew that you had just that great spirit and you know you have our support and backing…I think one of the great tributes that we can pay in memory of President Kennedy is to try to enact some of the great, progressive policies that he sought to initiate.

    This is how a successful activist operates. Not “fuck the racist White House that has failed to pass the civil rights act”.

    • SulaymanF@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      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.

      • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        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?