SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
democratic national committee
Will Dem Leadership Follow the Base on Gaza or Get Left Behind?
By appearing to put the profits of arms manufacturers above the lives of Palestinian children, a refusal to condition offensive military aid could subject Israel hawks to primary challengers or result in lower turnout for incumbents in the general election.
Sep 07, 2025
Nearly two years in to the US-backed genocide in Gaza, there are clear signals that the Democratic Party’s base is moving far away from supporting the Israeli government and its war machine.
And while party leadership is beginning to show some hopeful signs that it might be starting to listen to constituents’ changing attitudes on the issue of Israel and Palestine, such a shift wasn’t immediately obvious from the summer meeting of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in Minneapolis last month.
Recent polls have shown 78% of Democrats support recognizing the State of Palestine, which three-quarters of United Nations member states—including some of the United States’ closest allies—already do. Similarly, 75% of Democratic voters oppose sending additional military aid to Israel, which is already illegal, according to Section 620I of the Foreign Assistance Act, which bars the United States from providing military assistance to countries blocking humanitarian aid.
Still, at its August meeting, the DNC Resolutions Committee voted down a resolution calling for recognizing Palestine and suspending military aid with a decisive margin.
Following the defeat of the resolution, which had been endorsed by College Democrats and other progressive constituencies, and rejecting the sponsors’ offers to compromise on the language, DNC Chair Ken Martin and 17 other top party leaders successfully pushed through a different resolution which, while advocating a two-state solution, insisted the creation of a Palestinian state only come “through direct bilateral negotiations.” Critics, however, note that no such direct Israeli-Palestinian talks have taken place for more than a decade while the current Israeli government categorically rules out Palestinian statehood. Combined with the DNC’s objection to conditioning aid to Israel, this appears to have been a de facto endorsement of ongoing Israeli control over and colonization of the occupied territories.
While the party leadership’s resolution specifically condemned Hamas for its October 7, 2023 terrorist attack, calling the killing of 1,200 Israelis a “massacre,” it did not condemn Israel’s killing of over 50 times as many Palestinians, referring to their deaths in the passive voice and not even saying who did the killing—the resolution only noted the “loss” of tens of thousands of lives in “the war between Israel and Hamas.” The resolution also implied that Hamas was equally responsible for the growing famine in Gaza as was the Israeli government, which is imposing the siege on the enclave. The resolution’s call for a ceasefire was linked to the unconditional release of the remaining Israeli hostages while failing to call on Israel to release the estimated nearly 5,000 Palestinians held without charge in Israeli prisons.
However, that resolution never even made it to the full DNC. Aware of the backlash following the two votes, Martin immediately withdrew his resolution from consideration. Recognizing the vote’s potential impact, the DNC chair for the first time acknowledged that “there’s a divide in our party on this issue,” saying, “This is a moment that calls for shared dialogue, calls for shared advocacy.” He then announced a taskforce “comprised of stakeholders on all sides of this” to help formulate the party’s position on Israel and Palestine.
The willingness to finally challenge the party’s traditional blank check to the Israeli government may be tactical: Increasing numbers of Democrats, particularly younger voters, are not just questioning Israeli policies, but Zionism itself.
There is likely no other issue where the party leadership is as out of sync with its base. Allison Minnerly, a young DNC member who sponsored the defeated resolution, noted how only 8% of registered Democrats support the party’s current position in support of Israel’s war on Gaza. And the defeat was not for lack of mobilization: Members of the committee received hundreds of thousands of emails encouraging support for Minnerly’s resolution.
Harold Meyerson, editor at-large for The American Prospect, noted, “We’ve been here before: widespread Democratic opposition to an outrageous war, particularly among the young, while a good chunk of the party’s establishment remains unwilling to halt US involvement in that conflict. In the ’60s, that was Vietnam. Today, it’s Gaza.”
According to James Zogby, a longtime DNC member and advocate of Palestinian rights, the Minneapolis meeting should be seen in a somewhat positive light as a result of the unprecedented level of debate—and the fact that Martin felt obliged to withdraw his resolution. In a statement following the meeting, Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute, wrote that the outcome should be seen as “a recognition of the shifting tides within the party and the reality that the status quo has become unacceptable and untenable. Supporters of Palestinian rights should understand that this was a victory and an important step forward in the long struggle for justice.”
In addition, there are signs of a real shift among Democratic officials, even in Washington. While Democratic Senate leader Chuck Schumer, Democratic House leader Hakeem Jeffries, and most others in the congressional leadership still strongly advocate arming and supporting the Israeli government, for the first time a majority of Democratic senators voted in favor of an unsuccessful resolution earlier this summer to block US President Donald Trump’s proposal to send additional bombs and missiles to further destroy Gaza. As a result of the dramatic shift among Democratic voters in recent months regarding US policy toward Israel and Palestine, it appears that at least some Democratic politicians are now becoming more scared of their constituents than they are of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
Notably, increasing numbers of Jewish Democrats in Congress are calling for suspending offensive military aid to Israel, as are some Democrats who previously received AIPAC funding and supported the group’s unwavering support for the Netanyahu government.
Just as Democratic officials became more willing to oppose the Vietnam War once it was being waged by Republican Richard Nixon instead of Democrat Lyndon Johnson, Democratic members of Congress today are appearing more willing to challenge Trump’s support for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu than they were former President Joe Biden’s.
With over two-thirds of registered Democrats saying Israel’s actions in Gaza constitute a genocide or are “akin to genocide” (nine times those saying otherwise), the party’s 2024 platform, which insisted that billions of dollars’ worth of unconditional military aid to Israel remain “ironclad,” is becoming increasingly controversial. And the Democratic Party’s longstanding position of prioritizing the national rights and security interests of Israelis over Palestinians is harder to defend when polling shows only 12% of registered Democrats say their sympathies are more with Israel.
By appearing to put the profits of arms manufacturers above the lives of Palestinian children, this refusal to condition offensive military aid could subject Israel hawks to primary challengers or result in lower turnout for incumbents in the general election.
Liberal Zionist groups like J Street are now for the first time supporting some restrictions on military aid and are trying to push the Democratic Party to take a more critical position against Netanyahu, the war on Gaza, and the occupation of Palestine. A number of state Democratic parties, even in swing states like North Carolina, have gone on record calling for a suspension of military aid to Israel.
Historically, the Democratic Party leadership has initially been out of line with its constituents on key foreign policy issues, including in Vietnam, Central America, Southern Africa, East Timor, Iraq and, Afghanistan, as well as on the nuclear arms race.
The willingness to finally challenge the party’s traditional blank check to the Israeli government may be tactical: Increasing numbers of Democrats, particularly younger voters, are not just questioning Israeli policies, but Zionism itself. There is also a growing sense among progressive Democrats that, with increasing colonization of the West Bank by Israeli settlers, it may be a too late for a viable two-state solution and the focus should be on ending Israeli apartheid and creating a single binational state between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.
As a result, there is growing recognition that if party leaders do not explicitly break with Netanyahu, Democratic voters may demand that Democratic candidates in the upcoming midterm elections and beyond take outright anti-Israel positions.
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) has said that arms transfers to Israel is “going to be a defining issue in the Democratic Party in the midterms and for 2028.” Already, potential 2028 contenders like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, Khanna, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), and Illinois Governor JB Pritzker have gone on record supporting conditioning further arms transfers.
Meanwhile, in New York City, long a bastion of the pro-Israel wing of the Democratic Party, Democrats have nominated Zohran Mamdani, a vocal critic of Israel, to be their nominee for mayor.
It is not just the undeniable horror of the humanitarian situation in Gaza and increasing settler violence in the West Bank that are responsible for this shift. Credit should also be given to the widespread popular mobilization against US support for Netanyahu, not only from traditional pro-Palestine groups, but mainstream liberal and progressive organizations which had traditionally avoided the subject. Over 20 prominent groups aligned with the Democratic Party have formed the Reject AIPAC Coalition to push Democratic candidates to refuse money from AIPAC, an influential right-wing Zionist organization.
For example, Peace Action, the largest multi-issue peace group, has long taken solid positions regarding Israel and Palestine, but only rarely made it a priority, and their PAC was willing to endorse supporters of Israel’s wars and occupation if they were progressive on other foreign policy issues. Now, however, they have been among the leading groups mobilizing against US support for Netanyahu, having made it their number one issue over the past two years, and are pushing hard to restrict US arms transfers. They are currently spearheading support for the Block the Bombs Act in Congress.
Jon Rainwater, Peace Action’s executive director noted: “How can Sen. Chuck Schumer lead the Democratic Party against Trumpism if he sides with Bibi Netanyahu’s worst authoritarian instincts…? How can someone like Sen. Cory Booker give anti-authoritarian speeches about fighting ‘for the moral soul of the nation’ while he votes to keep the US complicit in starving a people and other war crimes?”
There can be major political costs if Democratic candidates refuse to side with the majority of their constituents. Kamala Harris lost the 2024 election due to a major drop-off in Democratic voters from four years earlier. One poll indicated that the single biggest reason cited by voters who had cast their ballots for Biden in 2020 but didn’t back Harris in 2024 was the ongoing Israeli war on Gaza, which Harris was seen to support.
Historically, the Democratic Party leadership has initially been out of line with its constituents on key foreign policy issues, including in Vietnam, Central America, Southern Africa, East Timor, Iraq and, Afghanistan, as well as on the nuclear arms race. Eventually, however, the party’s base has been able to force changes in position. It is looking increasingly likely that such a change may be in store regarding Israel and Palestine.
The question is how long it will take—and how many more Palestinians will have to die before it becomes a reality.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Why the Debate at the DNC Was a Victory for Palestinian Rights
Chair Martin’s decision to withdraw his resolution and create a task force to continue the conversation within the party was a recognition of the reality that the status quo has become unacceptable and untenable.
Sep 02, 2025
While some supporters of Palestinian rights saw the developments at last week’s meeting of the Democratic National Committee as a defeat, it was, in fact, a victory. Here is what happened at the meeting and why I feel that progress was made:
During the party’s Resolutions Committee two separate resolutions were debated. While both called for an immediate ceasefire and unimpeded humanitarian aid to Palestinians in Gaza, one, submitted by young Democrats, went further, condemning Israeli actions in Gaza and calling for a suspension of US arms sales to Israel and US recognition of Palestinian statehood. In response to this resolution, the party’s establishment submitted an alternative that included no such criticism of Israeli policies or any mention of stopping US arms shipments to Israel.
There was intense lobbying for and against both efforts, with pro-Israel groups and some elected officials and party donors warning members of the committee that passing the resolution critical of Israel would divide the Democratic Party, costing it contributions and victories in the midterm elections. On the other side, committee members each reported receiving upward of 5,000 emails or phone calls from young Democrats and progressive activists urging them to vote for the resolution demanding an end to US weapons to Israel.
As expected, the establishment resolution won, and the young Democrats’ effort lost. But immediately after the vote, the Democratic Party’s chair, Ken Martin, after speaking with the most critical resolution’s sponsors, rose to announce that he was asking that, in the name of party unity, his resolution be withdrawn and not presented to the entire Democratic National Committee for their acceptance. He further pledged to create a task force of stakeholders in this debate to continue this conversation and find solutions that can be brought back to the party for consideration.
Some advocates, on both sides of this debate, were disappointed. On the pro-Israel side, Martin was derided for his weakness in “surrendering to the far left,” while some supporters of Palestinian rights said that the way the issue was handled would only delay Israel’s day of reckoning, cost more Palestinian lives, and further alienate young voters from the Democratic Party.
Both are wrong. Martin’s decision was politically thoughtful, and in reality, advocates for a change in US policy toward Israel won a significant victory. Before explaining why this is so, one important fact must be understood: The Democratic National Committee is not a legislative body. It doesn’t make policy. Policy is made by Congress and the White House. Even if the committee had passed a resolution calling for ending arms sales to Israel, nothing would have happened. What the party can do is reflect where Democrats stand on critical issues facing the country and help to move forward the discussion of these matters. This is exactly what the resolution critical of Israel had forced onto the agenda last week.
What also must be considered is while the debate over these resolutions was only the fourth time that any such discussion of the Palestinian issue has occurred at an official party meeting during the past four decades, it was the first time the discussion wasn’t in response to a presidential candidate. This debate was a grassroots-led effort.
While pro-Israel groups still have some sway, their clout has been diminished.
In 1984 and 1988, I was able to represent the Jesse Jackson campaign in introducing platform planks calling for Palestinian rights. The issue wasn’t introduced again in a party gathering until 2016, when representing the Bernie Sanders campaign, we again brought forward a platform resolution on Palestine. In all of those previous instances, we lost and no one in the party establishment cared to find a way to accommodate our concerns. In fact, in the wake of the defeat of our 1988 resolution calling for “mutual recognition, territorial compromise, and self-determination for both Israelis and Palestinians,” I was asked to vacate my post on the Democratic National Committee because I was told that the presence of a pro-Palestinian advocate would be a liability for the party!
This year’s outcome was clearly different, and it is due to the fact that public opinion has dramatically changed. And while pro-Israel groups still have some sway, their clout has been diminished. Polls show that Democrats are deeply offended by Israel’s actions. They are far more sympathetic to Palestinians and want an end to US military and political support for Israel, often by margins of between 7 or 10 to 1. And as we approach the 2026 midterm elections, the issues of support for Palestinians and ending arms sales to Israel have become litmus tests for Democratic senators and members of Congress.
Given this, Chair Martin’s decision to withdraw his resolution and create a task force to continue the conversation within the party was a recognition of the shifting tides within the party and the reality that the status quo has become unacceptable and untenable. Supporters of Palestinian rights should understand that this was a victory and an important step forward in the long struggle for justice.
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Abbott Signs Texas Map Rigged for Trump, Missouri GOP Aims to Follow Suit
One critic said Texas Republicans' "reckless, partisan power grab will harm our democracy for years to come."
Aug 29, 2025
Democracy defenders on Friday blasted elected Texas Republicans, including Gov. Greg Abbott, after he signed a new congressional map gerrymandered for the GOP at the request of US President Donald Trump—and Missouri Gov. Mike Kehoe, for launching a copycat effort.
"Gov. Abbott would rather do Trump's dirty work than help the people of Texas," said Brett Edkins, managing director of policy and political affairs at the progressive advocacy group Stand Up America, in a statement.
"For months, he has ignored the real issues affecting Texans, including flood relief, and instead pandered to Trump's demand that he redraw Texas' political maps to rig the 2026 elections and silence communities of color," he continued. "Texas Republicans have started a nationwide redistricting arms race with no end in sight. Their reckless, partisan power grab will harm our democracy for years to come."
Abbott and state lawmakers have been open about aiming to help the GOP retain control of Congress during next year's midterm elections by passing their so-called "One Big Beautiful Map." The governor—who called two special legislative sessions to force through the bill—posted a video of himself signing it on social media and declared that "Texas will be more RED in Congress."
During the first legislative session, dozens of Democrats in the Texas House fled to blue states in a bid to block the map, but they ultimately returned to Austin. After GOP legislators passed the bill, the NAACP and the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law filed a lawsuit over the map.
After the governor signed the bill on Friday, Texas Democratic Party Chair Kendall Scudder said in a statement that "with a stroke of the pen, Greg Abbott and the Republicans have effectively surrendered Texas to Washington, DC."
"They love to boast about how 'Texas Tough' they are, but when Donald Trump made one call, they bent over backwards to prioritize his politics over Texans. Honestly, it's pathetic," he said. "I am proud of the Texas Democrats in the House and Senate who chose to fight, whether by a constitutionally protected quorum break, questioning these mapmakers, trying to pass amendments, or even attempting to filibuster."
"This isn't over—we'll see these clowns in court," he pledged. "We aren't done fighting against these racially discriminatory maps, and fully expect the letter of the law to prevail over these sycophantic Republican politicians who think the rules don't apply to them."
The contested map makes five Texas districts for the US House of Representatives that are currently held by Democrats more favorable to Republicans.
While elected Democrats in states such as California have threatened to fight fire with fire and draw Republican congressional districts out of existence, GOP governors—under pressure from the president—have also moved to follow Texas' lead. For example, Missouri Gov. Mike Kehoe on Friday announced a special legislative session to pass his proposed "Missouri First Map."
Responding in a statement, Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chair Ken Martin said that "another Republican governor just caved to the demands of Donald Trump at the expense of Missouri families and American democracy. Time and time again, Missouri Gov. Mike Kehoe has undermined the voice of Missouri voters."
"Now he is attempting to dilute their power altogether by removing the ability of Missourians to stand up against this power grab," Martin continued. "Make no mistake: This all started because Trump and Republicans passed a historically unpopular budget bill that wrecks the working class to reward billionaires. Now, instead of facing the consequences of their votes, Republicans think they can just choose their voters—that's not how this works."
"As California has shown, Democrats are rising up to protect voters' sacred rights, and we're not pulling our punches," he added. "The DNC will stand with Democrats protecting the rights of all Americans as Donald Trump and spineless Republicans try to rig the game against the will of the people."
John Bisognano, president of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, said that "over the past month, Missourians of all stripes, from proud union members to business leaders, have expressed their opposition to a mid-decade gerrymander, yet Missouri Republicans are choosing to take orders from Washington instead of their constituents."
"Republicans enacted the current congressional map in response to public pressure from Missouri voters," he said. "Their sudden reversal shows that their pursuit of a mid-decade gerrymander is nothing more than a power grab at the expense of the people. Heading into this special session, Missouri Republicans have a choice: They can listen to Missourians, who oppose a mid-decade gerrymander, or they can fold to Donald Trump's demands and face the same level of fierce resistance displayed in Texas."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular