

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
No matter how much the DNC leadership tries to shunt it aside, the burning issue of US policy toward Israel will not go away.
When the governing body of the Democratic Party convenes next month, it will face a challenge to its support for Israel. The Democratic National Committee has evaded the fact that large majorities of Democrats oppose continuing military aid to Israel and believe it has committed genocide in Gaza. The stage is set for jarring discord when the DNC’s 450 members gather in New Orleans.
An NBC poll released this week underscores the depth of the DNC’s political folly. The results were lopsided, by a 67-17 percent margin in favor of Palestinians, when the survey asked Democrats: “Are your sympathies more with the Israelis or more with the Palestinians?”
The DNC leadership has stayed on a collision course with political realities about Israel. Last August, while a Gallup poll was showing that just 8 percent of Democrats approved of Israel’s military actions in Gaza, DNC chair Ken Martin said at a meeting of delegates from across the country that “there’s a divide in our party on this issue.” He didn’t acknowledge that the crucial divide is actually between the party’s leadership and Democrats nationwide.
At that summer meeting, amid contention over US policies toward Israel, Martin withdrew his party-line resolution after it won and after a pro-Palestinian rights measure lost. He called for “shared dialogue” and “shared advocacy,” announcing that he would appoint a task force “comprised of stakeholders on all sides of this to continue to have the conversation.” Martin declared that “this crisis in Gaza is urgent” and an “emergency.”
But the “emergency” lost its urgency as soon as the DNC adjourned and the media spotlight disappeared. Six months passed before the first meeting of the task force, which by then had been downgraded to a “working group.”
The working group’s convener (selected by Martin) is James Zogby, a longtime advocate for Palestinian rights. Zogby had greeted Martin’s task-force announcement with praise, calling it “politically thoughtful” and a recognition of “the reality that the status quo has become unacceptable and untenable.”
But more than six months later, the status quo remains undisturbed as the DNC’s Middle East Working Group proceeds at a snail’s pace. And the composition of the eight-member panel makes it foreseeably incapable of reaching its purported goal to “help us sort out how our party deals with America’s policies in the Middle East.”
The working group is an oil-and-water mix of fully incompatible views on Palestinian rights and Israeli power. Some on the DNC panel want an embargo on US arms to Israel, while others firmly oppose any such step. One member of the working group, Andrew Lachman, has led fights inside the California Democratic Party to thwart actions or statements critical of Israel. He is currently the president of Democrats for Israel-California.
How the DNC’s appointed group is supposed to “sort out” a Democratic Party position on US policy in the Middle East is inexplicable. But the project does have an evident function. The Middle East Working Group has proven itself to be a stalling mechanism. And the pretenses behind it have become even more fanciful as the US-Israel military alliance persists with a war of aggression on Iran that has been setting the region on fire.
No matter how much the DNC leadership tries to shunt it aside, the burning issue of US policy toward Israel will not go away. This year, it has become key in one Democratic primary race after another, putting incumbent members of Congress on the defensive for their timeworn efforts to justify support for Israel or acceptance of funding from the AIPAC lobby. Yet the DNC stance is that the party establishment is wise to seal itself off from such unpleasantness.
The DNC’s refusal to make public its autopsy of the 2024 election is tangled up in dodging the autopsy’s reported conclusion that Kamala Harris’ rigid support for arming Israel was a significant factor in her defeat. Keeping the official autopsy under wraps, supposedly in order to improve the prospects of future election victories, actually makes such victories less likely by mystifying instead of clarifying electoral history.
Martin told Fox News viewers in late February that concentrating on the future would be better than trying to “relitigate” the 2024 election. But hiding the autopsy amounts to condescension, assuming that only a small elite party circle should be privy to the results of the party’s extensive (and expensive) research. Many Democratic activists and candidates would benefit from candor instead of stonewalling.
Weeks ago, the annual convention of the California Democratic Party responded to growing pressure from grassroots activists by adopting a platform that advocates for “an immediate end to the mass civilian casualties, destruction, displacement and starvation of Palestinians in Gaza.” The platform says that “Palestinians in Gaza should be able to rebuild without displacement, with international humanitarian, economic and security assistance,” and it calls for “the immediate rebuilding of Gaza with the provision of humanitarian aid, restoration of funding for an UNRWA that serves the Palestinian people.”
But the Democratic National Committee, like the bulk of Democrats in Congress, lags far behind such grassroots outlooks. The top-down culture that prevails in the national party has stultified internal debate, rendering it scarce and pro forma. Despite Martin’s reform talk, whatever the DNC chair says goes. “I’ve been more and more disappointed with him,” a progressive DNC member told me days ago. “He says he loves internal debate and small-d democracy. I think it’s a talking point. I don’t know that he really wants that.”
After a little more than a year in the job, Martin has cleared the low bar set by his immediate predecessor, Jaime Harrison, who dutifully served President Biden for four years. But the DNC is still largely paralyzed with pressure from its old guard and insistence on being unaccountable to the party’s rank-and-file. The Democratic Party is in dire need of democracy.
On no issue is that more apparent than the DNC’s insistence on treating Israel as above serious reproach. The ruse of forming and then slow-walking the Middle East Working Group may have bought some time for the Democratic Party’s status quo of complicity with genocide in Gaza and US-Israeli war crimes elsewhere in the region. But party activists genuinely committed to human rights will not be fooled and will not be silent.
The intervention comes as the US and Israel are waging a joint war on Iran.
After over two years of arming and otherwise supporting the Israeli government as it lays waste to the Gaza Strip—even after an October ceasefire deal—the United States this week officially joined an International Court of Justice case to defend Israel from allegations of genocide.
The United Nations' primary tribunal announced Friday that the Trump administration had filed a declaration of intervention under Article 63 of the ICJ statute. The filing states, "To avoid any doubt, the United States affirms, in the strongest terms possible, that the allegations of 'genocide' against Israel are false."
"They are also unfortunately nothing new," the document continues. "The United States recalls that international fora have been misused to level false charges of 'genocide' against the state of Israel since at least May 1976 as part of a broader campaign (including UN General Assembly resolution 3379) to delegitimize the state of Israel and the Jewish people and to justify or encourage terrorism against them."
"Sadly, that effort remains' ongoing," the filing claims. "Only days after Hamas launched its assault of mass rape, murder, and kidnapping on October 7, 2023, pro-Hamas actors, including the Islamic Republic of Iran, were already falsely charging Israel once again with 'genocide.'"
The filing comes less than two weeks after President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu began a joint war against Iran. Since then, Israel has also returned to bombing Lebanon, despite a November 2024 ceasefire agreement, and again cut off the flow of humanitarian aid into Gaza. The bombing of Gaza by Israel has also continued.
When South Africa initiated its case in December 2023, accusing Israel of violating the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide with its slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza, Israel's bombardment and blockade had killed more than 21,500 people, according to local health officials.
The Gaza Ministry of Health now puts the death toll at 72,136, with another 171,839 wounded—including 651 killed and 1,741 injured since the ceasefire began. Experts around the world have warned that the true figures could be far higher.
The US filing states that "civilian casualties, even widespread civilian casualties, are not necessarily probative of genocidal intent, particularly when they occur in the context of an armed conflict involving urban combat."
However, as South Africa highlighted in its initial application, "repeated statements by Israeli state representatives, including at the highest levels, by the Israeli president, prime minister, and minister of defense express genocidal intent."
"That intent is also properly to be inferred from the nature and conduct of Israel’s military operation in Gaza, having regard... to Israel's failure to provide or ensure essential food, water, medicine, fuel, shelter, and other humanitarian assistance for the besieged and blockaded Palestinian people, which has pushed them to the brink of famine," South Africa's filing states. "It is also clear from the nature, scope and extent of Israel’s military attacks on Gaza."
Fiji, Hungary, and Namibia also intervened in the ICJ case on Thursday. While only Namibia supports South Africa, the interventions came a day after Iceland and the Netherlands also formally backed the arguments against Israel.
In addition to the ICJ case, the International Criminal Court—also based at the Hague—has issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza. Trump has retaliated with sanctions against ICC jurists.
With the intervention of two more nations, 18 have now joined in support of the case, initially brought by South Africa.
The Netherlands and Iceland have joined the case before the International Court of Justice, accusing Israel of genocide in Gaza.
On Wednesday, both nations filed declarations under Article 63 of the ICJ statute, which allows parties to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide to intervene in cases involving the interpretation of that convention.
The case was filed in 2023 by South Africa, which cited numerous instances of Israeli leaders using genocidal rhetoric amid an onslaught of attacks against civilians.
Since October 2023, official estimates from the Gaza Ministry of Health have found that more than 72,000 people have been killed, though independent reviews have placed the death toll much higher.
Several independent humanitarian organizations, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the Israel-based organization B'Tselem, have concurred with the intervening parties that Israel's conduct has constituted "genocide."
Article II of the 1948 Genocide Convention defines "genocide" as acts "committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group." Among these acts are killing, inflicting serious bodily or mental harm, deliberately inflicting conditions of life to bring about their destruction, imposing measures to prevent births, or forcibly transferring their children to other groups.
In its filing before the ICJ, the Netherlands—home to The Hague, where the ICJ is located—argued that Israel's forcible displacement of more than 1 million civilians, killing of more than 20,000 children according to official estimates, and blocking humanitarian aid to use starvation as a weapon of war, are all acts that, when paired with statements from Israeli officials, imply genocidal intent.
The Dutch urged judges on the court to "take account of starvation or the deliberate withholding of humanitarian aid for the purpose of establishing specific intent, in particular when this occurs on the basis of a concerted plan of a consistent pattern of conduct.”
Iceland in particular emphasized Israel's conduct toward the children of Gaza, saying that "attacks on children, including killing and causing serious bodily or mental harm, require special scrutiny as they are particularly indicative of intent to destroy the group."
The pair of European nations brought the total of countries participating in the proceedings up to 18—among them are Belgium, Brazil, Belize, Colombia, Ireland, Mexico, Spain, and Turkey.
The United States, under the Trump administration, meanwhile, has cut off foreign aid to South Africa for its role in launching the case against Israel, which receives billions of dollars in US military assistance annually.
Iceland's intervention in the genocide case marks the first time it has participated in a substantive case before the ICJ, according to the Icelandic news outlet RÚV.
"With Iceland's participation in South Africa's case before the International Court of Justice, we are using our voice in support of international law and human rights," said its minister for foreign affairs, Þorgerður Katrín Gunnarsdóttir. "And we can be proud of that."
While its decisions are legally binding and could require Israel to cease violations of the Genocide Convention, the ICJ is not a criminal court.
However, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant have each been issued arrest warrants as part of separate war crimes proceedings by the International Criminal Court (ICC), which have thus far not been enforced.