No, this is not 1968

The Gaza protests at the DNC, for all their noise and righteous fury, feel a bit… off.

Credit: Reuters

The Windy City is blowing in more than just a breeze this week as Democrats converge on Chicago for their national convention; it’s the throngs of protesters storming the streets, waving Palestinian flags and demanding justice for Gaza.

There are countless comparisons to 1968, the last time the Democratic circus rolled into Chicago. Back then, the city became a battlefield as a new generation of activists clashed with police in a desperate bid to end America’s involvement in Vietnam. Inside the convention hall, delegates chose to overlook the popular anti-war candidate, Senator Eugene McCarthy, and instead handed the nomination to Vice President Hubert Humphrey—a man who supported the very war everyone outside was screaming to stop. The result? A fractured party, a bruised democracy, and a legacy of chaos that still haunts the Democrats to this day.

Today, however, there’s a glaring twist—no U.S. soldiers are fighting in Gaza, and the stakes, at least for America, are far more symbolic than existential.

Let’s start with the basics. The protesters have every right to be there, shouting at the top of their lungs. After all, isn’t this what democracy looks like? Freedom of speech, taking to the streets, demanding action from our leaders, and all that jazz. The protesters are deeply concerned about the civilian casualties and humanitarian crisis in Gaza, as any decent person should be. And who can blame them? This nightmare has been unfolding before our eyes for ten months.

But here’s the rub—this isn’t 1968. The Vietnam War was a quagmire with U.S. soldiers entrenched in the thick of it, a conflict where American lives were directly on the line. Gaza, however, is an entirely different beast. America’s role here is more of a distant puppeteer than a direct participant. We’re not sending our young men and women to die in a far-off land, and we’re not—at least not yet—directly engaged in this war.

And that’s precisely why this protest, for all its noise and righteous fury, feels a bit… off. The stakes aren’t the same, and neither is the context. What we’re witnessing is a kind of protest cosplay, where the costumes and chants are all in place, but the underlying reality doesn’t quite match the performance.

That’s why the notion that this is some kind of 1968 redux is misguided at best and delusional at worst. Back then, protesters were battling against a war that America was deeply, painfully involved in. Today, they’re raging against a conflict where America’s role is largely limited to diplomatic and financial/military support. It’s a crucial distinction, but one that seems lost in the fervor of the moment.

There’s a romanticism at play here, a nostalgic yearning for the glory days when protest could change the course of history. But this isn’t Vietnam, and Kamala Harris isn’t Hubert Humphrey. The protesters seem to be operating under the illusion that if they just yell loud enough, if they just block enough traffic, they can force a fundamental shift in U.S. policy toward Israel. It’s a nice thought, but it’s also wildly naive.

The reality is, no matter how many people show up with signs and slogans, the political table is largely set. Harris might offer some platitudes, maybe even a few nods to their concerns, but expecting her—or anyone in the Democratic leadership—to suddenly pivot away from supporting Israel is wishful thinking. The U.S. has been backing Israel for decades, and that’s not about to change because a few thousand people showed up in Chicago.

The protesters have also seemingly forgotten that Mideast policy belongs to the president, who is still Joe Biden. Yes, he has failed to play hardball with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by refusing to hand over offensive weapons unless Netanyahu takes more care to avoid the civilian carnage in Gaza. Sure, Hamas bears responsibility by lighting the fuse with its horrific attack on October 7, but that’s no justification for Netanyahu’s disproportionate response, which has turned Israel into an international pariah and put its future at risk. And let’s be honest, our own complicity in this mess doesn’t look too great either.

But Harris, for all her faults and flaws, is a seasoned politician. She knows the game, and she knows where the lines are drawn. While she might express sympathy for the plight of Palestinian civilians—and indeed, she has made some moves in that direction—she’s also keenly aware of the political realities. The U.S. relationship with Israel is complex, deeply rooted, and not something that can be easily dismantled by a few fiery speeches or a well-timed protest. The Democratic Party 2024 platform, released this weekend, makes that clear by emphasizing America’s “ironclad” support for Israel.

There’s something almost endearing about the idealism on display at these protests. The idea that by gathering en masse, they can somehow force the U.S. to turn its back on Israel and embrace a new policy that equally prioritizes Palestinian lives is, on the surface, noble. But dig a little deeper, and it quickly becomes clear that this expectation is built on a foundation of naivety.

Remember Donald Trump? The mere thought that sitting out this election or voting for a third party will somehow help the Palestinian cause is laughable. Trump has made it abundantly clear where he stands on this issue, and it’s not with the Palestinians or the protesters, who he promised to “throw out of the U.S.” if he returns to office. Let’s not forget his administration’s policies weren’t just pro-Israel; they were unabashedly anti-Palestinian. And there’s every reason to believe he’d double down on that stance if given another chance. Sitting out the election isn’t a form of protest; it’s a form of surrender - as Harris, albeit quite bluntly, reminded protesters recently at a campaign event.

There’s yet another, more insidious element at play here: hypocrisy. It’s fascinating to watch as the same progressive movement that prides itself on standing up for the oppressed seems to have a selective memory when it comes to certain other oppressions worth fighting against. The silence from certain quarters on issues like anti-Semitism, while being vocally critical of Israel, is deafening. It’s almost as if there’s a hierarchy of oppression, where some causes are more worthy than others, depending on the political winds.

Let’s not kid ourselves—not all of these protesters are in Chicago to peacefully demonstrate their democratic fervor. There are reports that some of the 100 NGOs involved have questionable motives and even shadier funding, pushing an agenda that actively fuels antisemitism and hate in the United States.

Criticizing Israel is not in itself inherently anti-Semitic, but as I have written before, there’s a fine line between legitimate critique and outright bigotry. The protesters would do well to remember that. Yet, in their fervor to denounce Israel, they risk blurring that line, turning a political protest into something far more dangerous. It’s a slippery slope, and one that could have lasting consequences not just for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but for the progressive movement as a whole.

What’s more, these protests might actually have the opposite effect of what the organizers intend. Hamas, which claimed responsibility for a weekend bombing in Tel Aviv, is undoubtedly watching these demonstrations, taking note of the criticism leveled at the U.S. and Israel. They may see it as a sign that their strategy is working, that the international community is fracturing under the weight of public opinion. At a critical moment when a cease-fire could finally be within reach, these protests might embolden Hamas, leading to even more entrenched positions and, ultimately, more violence. It’s the ultimate irony: in trying to advocate for peace, these protesters might be contributing to the very cycle of violence they’re trying to stop.

Let’s give at least a modicum of credit where it’s due: Kamala Harris has shown more empathy toward the plight of Palestinians and has been more critical of Netanyahu than her boss, Joe Biden. While she’s not exactly waving the flag for an arms embargo on Israel, as protesters are calling for, Harris has certainly nudged the administration to pay closer attention to the humanitarian disaster unfolding in Gaza. After her meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu last month, she didn’t just toe the usual line about Israel’s right to defend itself. She also made a point to remind everyone that the suffering of civilians in Gaza is real and that we, as a nation, cannot become desensitized to it.

Despite weeks of pressure from pro-Palestinian activists, Harris has maintained her stance, supporting Biden’s efforts toward a cease-fire while stopping short of their more radical demands. It’s a tightrope act, trying to keep the Democratic Party somewhat united on an issue that’s tearing at its seams. Harris’s campaign has met met with “uncommitted” delegates and both Arab American and Jewish leaders, trying to find a path forward that acknowledges these deep concerns while staying within the bounds of political reality. It’s far from the revolution some activists hoped for, but it’s more than just lip service.

So, where does this leave us? The protesters will march, the speeches will be made, and the banners will be waved. But in the end, what will it all accomplish? The likely answer is not much. The U.S. isn’t going to suddenly change its stance on Israel because a few thousand people took to the streets in Chicago. But Democratic leadership isn’t going to abandon its longstanding support for Israel because of a protest, no matter how passionate.

So, while the protesters are out there shouting, the rest of us might do well to remember that not every protest is a turning point. Sometimes, it’s just noise.