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 upwards 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.
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
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critical resolution’s sponsors, rose to announce that he was asking that, in the name of party unity, his resolution be withdrawn and not presented to the entire Democratic National Committee for their acceptance.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.
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 seven or 10 to one. 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.
