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
ken martin
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critical resolution’s sponsors, rose to announce that he was asking that, in the name of party unity, his resolution be withdrawn and not presented to the entire Democratic National Committee for their acceptance.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
Democratic Voters Are Sick of Funding Israel. Will the Leaders Listen?
It’s necessary for us to continue making the case for the Democratic Party to abandon the unelected donor class and become a party of the working class that promotes peace and justice at home and abroad.
Aug 29, 2025
After the shock upset of the 2024 election, Democrats asked themselves how they could have possibly lost what should have been a landslide victory over Trump. There were long discussions on bringing back young voters, reconnecting with the working class, and reassessing the party’s relationship with groups like American Israel Public Affairs Committee that don’t align with the voting base.
It seems, however, the party establishment has not decided to change its strategy in any way, continuing on a course that will allow the Republicans to run rampant in dismantling what little of democracy and social safety nets this country had.
The trouble is that the leadership of the Democratic Party is captured by a donor class whose values do not align with the voters. As a result, when the voters are divided 90-10 on an issue, the leadership often will side with the 10.
A new Quinnipiac survey found that an overwhelming majority of 77% of Democrats have come to the conclusion that Israel is committing the crime of genocide, but yet still only a small fraction of elected Democrats have openly acknowledged that reality.
There are Democrats who are taking the side of the voters by opposing Israel’s genocide while taking an aggressive approach to US President Donald Trump, but instead of being embraced by party leadership, they are being shut out.
When House Minority Whip Katherine Clark (D-Mass.), the No. 2 Democrat in the House, was attending an event at a Quaker Meeting House in her district, she was confronted by myself and other constituents on her complicity in Israel’s genocide. In this conversation, she acknowledged that the politics of Israel and Palestine have changed and used the term genocide in the context of Gaza. But then a few days later, likely under pressure from AIPAC and other pro-Israel groups, she issued a statement saying “I want to be clear that I am not accusing Israel of genocide.”
Despite coming from one of the country’s most progressive districts, she has an abysmally conservative record on Palestine. Clark has taken over $700,000 from pro-Israel groups like AIPAC, Democratic Majority for Israel (DMFI), and J-Street, making the Israel lobby her largest source of campaign money. Even though she has joined other Democrats in expressing how “horrified” they are about the starvation in Gaza, she still will not commit to taking a stance against arming the nation responsible for the famine.
Clark’s cowardice in the face of pressure from big donors at the expense of constituents is emblematic of Democratic leaders. Figures like Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who allowed the Republicans to move forward with their austerity budget, do not have the courage or the will to lead the Democratic Party in the fight against fascism.
This cowardice became apparent again recently in the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) reaction when a young member of the committee introduced a resolution before party leadership to call for an end of military aid to Israel. Groups like AIPAC and DMFI quickly mobilized in opposition to the bill and were successful shutting it down with support from DNC chair Ken Martin. This being despite a recent poll finding that 75% of Democrats oppose sending military aid to Israel and another that only 8% approve of Israel’s action in Gaza.
There are Democrats who are taking the side of the voters by opposing Israel’s genocide while taking an aggressive approach to US President Donald Trump, but instead of being embraced by party leadership, they are being shut out.
Zohran Mamdani won the New York City mayoral primary with a strong focus on issues of affordability, promising to freeze the rent, make buses fast and free, and implement universal childcare. These policies, along with Mamdani’s belief in Palestinian human rights, propelled him to victory over former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo in spite of opposition from corporations like DoorDash, the real estate lobby, and pro-Israel groups. Even though Mamdani has won theratic primary, securing the party’s nomination, many New York Democrats were slow to or yet to endorse him.
We are now seeing a similar scenario play out in Minneapolis where democratic socialist Omar Fateh mayoral candidate had his endorsement from Minnesota’s Democratic-Farmer Labor Party undemocratically revoked as a result of the work of a few party insiders.
Despite the efforts to silence them from the establishment, Mamdani holds a comfortable lead in the general election and Fateh is still a viable challenger to incumbent centrist Democrat Jacob Frey.
Mamdani and Fateh are now joined by a roster of leftist challengers running for Congress in 2026 against both corrupt Democrats and Republicans. Candidates like Maine’s Graham Platner and Michigan’s Abdul El-Sayed have both taken a principled stance against Israel’s genocide and promoted other popular policies like Medicare for all where again the party establishment has chosen the donors over the voters.
As 2026 approaches and pundits are already discussing who should run for president in 2028, it’s necessary for us to continue making the case for the Democratic Party to abandon the unelected donor class and become a party of the working class that promotes peace and justice at home and abroad. If not, the party will repeat the same mistakes it made in 2024, clearing the way for an uninterrupted fascist takeover.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'10 Years in the Making': DNC Passes Resolution to Limit Dark Money in Primaries
"Corporate money has been a disaster for progressive nominees," said Our Revolution board member Larry Cohen.
Aug 26, 2025
Following years of pressure from progressive advocates, the Democratic National Committee's resolutions panel on Tuesday unanimously approved a measure aimed at limiting dark money—undisclosed independent campaign contributions—in presidential primary elections.
The resolution, which was introduced by Chair Ken Martin, was approved during the DNC's summer meeting in Minneapolis. The measure calls for creating a panel tasked with pursuing "real, enforceable steps the DNC can take to eliminate unlimited corporate and dark money in its 2028 presidential primary process."
Tuesday's move stands in stark contrast with the DNC resolutions committee's past refusals to allow a vote on a dark money ban.
Larry Cohen, a leading campaigner against dark money and board member of Our Revolution, an offshoot of Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-Vt.) 2016 presidential campaign, told Common Dreams Tuesday that "corporate money has been a disaster for progressive nominees."
"Crypto money and AIPAC knocked out at least three or four people we were all supporting," Cohen noted, referring to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which along with its United Democracy Project (UDP) super PAC spent more than $100 million during the 2024 election cycle. AIPAC's largesse played a key role in helping pro-Israel Democrats defeat former progressive Reps. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) and Cori Bush (D-Mo.)—two of Congress' most vocal critics of Israel's genocide in Gaza—in Democratic primary contests.
DNC Resolution 4 opposing dark money in presidential primaries passes unanimously at DNC Resolutions Committee.This is a victory decades in the making after long years of opposition and struggle. Much appreciation to Chair Ken Martin.
[image or embed]
— David Atkins (@davidoatkins.bsky.social) August 26, 2025 at 7:11 AM
"If this party blocks corporate money in the nominating process and blocks dark money, those are two great steps," Cohen said, noting that the measure which passed Tuesday is "just a resolution of intent," not an actual change to the party's platform or a policy shift.
"The next step is [that] there will be a committee named that will talk about how we implement this for the 2028 presidential election, and that committee has to report back by the [DNC] meeting a year from now with specific implementation points," Cohen explained.
"That could mean that every potential Democratic candidate for president must sign the People's Pledge," he said, referring to the agreement between then-US Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) and Democratic challenger Elizabeth Warren in 2012 requiring candidates to offset spending by outside groups on their behalf.
"So if a candidate says, 'well I had nothing to do with this, but the money got spent,' in the People's Pledge, the candidate who benefited, Scott Brown, had to make a charitable donation of the same amount of money," Cohen said. "That would be an example of an implementation point."
As for possible legislative solutions like the DISCLOSE Act—a campaign finance reform bill repeatedly torpedoed in Congress—Cohen said that he "wouldn't give that too much weight because you have to change Congress."
"We came close," he said, but then-Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Az.) "blocked a rules change that would have put that bill on the floor with 50 supporters instead of 60… and now you have to imagine getting back to a time when [Democrats] will have 50 again."
"So that's in the resolution, there should be legislative change," Cohen added, "but also in the resolution is that all elected Democratic officials should look at what they can do," including at the state, county, and municipal levels.
"They can adopt rules to limit or eliminate the effectiveness of corporate, dark, and other independent expenditures, like Elon Musk money," Cohen said in a nod of infamy to the world's richest person, who spent upward of $290 million supporting President Donald Trump and other Republicans in 2024.
The US Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling, which allowed unlimited independent financial contributions to support political campaigns, unleashed a tsunami of dark money that has been used by billionaires and corporate interests to sideline progressive candidates and buy elections.
Since Citizens United, nearly $20 billion has been spent on US presidential elections and more than $53 billion on congressional races, according to data compiled by OpenSecrets. Spending on 2024 congressional races was double 2010 levels, while presidential campaign contributions were more than 50% higher in 2024 than in 2008, the last election before Citizens United.
The DNC's action on dark money was overshadowed by its rejection of another resolution calling for a suspension of US military aid to Israel.
"This party keeps digging its own grave," said attorney and organizer Asma Nizami. "And it's owned by AIPAC."
Correction: This article originally—and incorrectly—labeled former Sen. Scott Brown as a Democrat.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular