The International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that there is a plausible risk of Israel committing genocide on the Palestinians, who are “a protected group under the genocide convention.”

The damning ruling has left the Palestinians and our allies around the world feeling vindicated – to a point. It left me asking, how do global commitments to prevent genocide align with continued support for actions that may contradict these principles?

The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide has been signed and ratified or acceded by 153 countries – including Israel and the United States.

I was hopeful that the ruling of the plausibility of genocide against Israel would be enough for countries to distance themselves by halting funding and military aid, calling for a ceasefire, and meaningfully increasing aid into the devastated enclave so as not to be complicit in the continuation of these war crimes.

But the opposite happened after Israeli intelligence hurled allegations against the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) about the potential collusion of 13 UNRWA workers with the October 7th attack.

UNRWA, which was established 75 years ago in response to the refugee and humanitarian crisis prompted by the uprooting of 750,000 indigenous Palestinians after the founding of the state of Israel, is the one humanitarian aid organization with the needed on-the-ground capacity to alleviate the pain and suffering of innocent civilians in Gaza.

After the conveniently timed release of a report, rather than wait until the allegations could be verified, the United States and eleven other countries chose to suspend their funding of UNRWA at a time when famine, disease, and preventable death are becoming commonplace.

While the UN has since terminated the employment of those individuals named in the dossier, and the investigation is ongoing, the decision to withdraw funding from UNRWA will undoubtedly have catastrophic impacts to humanitarian aid.

Ironically, an Israeli official agrees, but for different reasons. The Times of Israel quoted the official saying “If UNRWA ceases operating on the ground, this could cause a humanitarian catastrophe that would force Israel to halt its fighting against Hamas. This would not be in Israel’s interest and it would not be in the interest of Israel’s allies either.”

Lenna, a Gazan, and her two children, are in Colorado as she finishes her studies. She, too, understands the grave impact this will have. “We found out our home was destroyed when my daughters saw our neighborhood decimated on TikTok.”

Even with the sparse communication she does have with her family, she has not had the heart to tell her mother, now one of the 1.9 million displaced Gazans, that there is nothing to return to.

Her husband has been giving her first-hand accounts of starvation and disease running rampant. Women have given testimonials about having cesarean sections without anesthesia. Hearing Lenna talk about her family reminded me that when the arguments were made before the ICJ for a case of genocide it was noted that — the Palestinians are livestreaming their own genocide.

But let’s bring all these factors back home. There is a growing opinion that Israel’s war on Gaza will single-handedly change the political landscape of the 2024 elections.

In key battleground states, the Muslim and Arab vote carries a lot of weight. President Joe Biden had a comfortable 59% of support among that demographic in 2020, in contrast to 17% by the end of 2023. Reuters reports that “Arab and Muslim Americans are unlikely to back Trump but could sit out the election and not vote for Biden, some activists said.”

The Nation has noted that a recent survey found that voters “are more inclined to support a member of Congress who supports a cease-fire and that they are less willing to support members of Congress who oppose calls for a cease-fire.”

A recent poll concluded, “Among Democrats, 77 percent of respondents said they would back a cease-fire in the war, while 58 percent of Republicans said the same.” And “65% of Americans would support a ceasefire.” Not a good look, with only 67 members of Congress having supported the call for ceasefire.

The clock is ticking and the campaign season is well underway. Candidates up and down the ballot have been faced with protesters at campaign events demanding that they call for a ceasefire. But candidates seem to be willfully ignoring the majority of Americans, their constituents, who are demanding that they call for a ceasefire.

A Time magazine opinion piece has set the stage for the administration, “If Biden truly wants to prevent the spread of war in the Middle East — and, in turn, prevent the election of Donald Trump — then he needs to use the considerable leverage that he has to bring about a ceasefire in Gaza.”

In 2016, the U.S. signed a historic military aid package to Israel, already the highest recipient of U.S. foreign aid, promising $38 billion over the next 10 years to one of the most advanced militaries in the world. With two years and billions still left of the deal, it’s not lost upon voters who are asking, why aren’t we investing that here, at home?  For example, HUD has reported that it would take 20 billion to end homelessness.

And the voters know that the U.S.’s bombing of Yemen last week will further destabilize the region.  71% of the electorate have made it clear to the administration aware of the contingency of their vote, believing that further involvement will result in the increase in gas prices. And the disruption of funding to UNRWA will put pressure on other member states, potentially destabilizing the region.

But with Netinyahu promising “many more months” of war, the administration has a choice to make with November fast approaching.

Iman Jodeh represents the Colorado House District 41. She is a Democrat from Aurora.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.