At last week’s Democratic National Committee meeting in New Orleans, two resolutions concerning Israel — including one that referred to Israel’s actions as a genocide — were tabled, and punted to a working group tasked with building consensus among Democrats on Middle East-related issues. 

At a time when Democrats appear deeply divided about how to address the U.S.-Israel relationship and Middle East policy more broadly, that’s a tall order. Never mind that the members of the working group include both strongly pro-Israel and staunchly anti-Israel voices, all tasked with working to further a message that will resonate with as many party members as possible. 

“As much as this issue is potentially divisive, I think it’s actually really the purview of a smaller group of activists who want something really radical. I think most Democrats are within what the Democratic platform of 2024 is, and that’s two peoples living in two states, side-by-side in peace,” Adam Goldwyn, a working group member who serves as chair of the North Dakota Democratic Party, told Jewish Insider. 

The Democratic Party’s 2024 platform, authored in the midst of Israel’s war in Gaza and the simultaneous hostage crisis, reflected former President Joe Biden’s support for Israel. But rank-and-file Democrats have shifted away from Israel since then. A recent Pew Research Center poll showed that 80% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents have an unfavorable view of Israel, an increase from 69% one year ago, and a growing cadre of Democratic candidates and activists have targeted the pro-Israel group AIPAC as a toxic brand that is not welcome in Democratic politics. 

Even though the DNC is not tasked with rewriting the party platform until 2028, the party’s biannual meetings present opportunities for activists to submit resolutions on any number of topics. Following Democrats’ 2024 defeat, anti-Israel activists — including two who sit on the working group — have put forward resolutions that would attempt to dramatically move the party’s public positioning to the left. 

One, which called for an arms embargo on Israel, was voted down at the party’s summer meeting in August 2025. Another, which criticized AIPAC’s involvement in Democratic primaries, failed to advance at the meeting in New Orleans last week. Allison Minnerly, a DNC member from Florida who authored both of those resolutions, sits on the working group. Another resolution considered last week, which referred to Israel’s actions as a genocide and was written by working group member Joseph Salas, was sent back to the working group for consideration. 

The question facing the group’s members is whether they will actually be able to agree on anything — or if the group is simply a way to push the issue off until 2028, when the party platform is again up for debate. It would not be the first bureaucratic Band-Aid applied to paper over an increasingly fraught political debate. 

“Both young voters who consider themselves vigorously pro-Palestinian, and Jewish voters, who are one of the most loyal groups in the Democratic Party, are not going anywhere,” said Andrew Lachman, a member of the working group who was previously the president of California Jewish Democrats. “Anyone who wants to take an approach of trying to shout one or the other out of the room, I think it’s bad politics. It’s bad for the party, and it’s an unrealistic expectation.” 

“We are working within the framework of the Democratic platform as it is now, so anything which attempts to radically rewrite where the party has been is not something that I personally feel is appropriate,” said Andrew Lachman, a member of the working group who was previously the president of California Jewish Democrats. 

Lachman said he recognized “that the conversation has shifted a little bit in the last couple of years.” But, he added, the party must still be able to find common ground among party members who hold different views on the issue.

“Both young voters who consider themselves vigorously pro-Palestinian, and Jewish voters, who are one of the most loyal groups in the Democratic Party, are not going anywhere,” said Lachman. “Anyone who wants to take an approach of trying to shout one or the other out of the room, I think it’s bad politics. It’s bad for the party, and it’s an unrealistic expectation.” 

DNC Chair Ken Martin created the working group last August, amid controversy surrounding the failed arms embargo resolution. He had put forth his own resolution, which was more balanced, but withdrew it and opted instead to task a group of party activists with litigating the issue.

“I feel like we’ve been a little rudderless,” Steph Newton, an Oregon Democrat who was appointed co-chair of the group, told JI on Friday after the group met in New Orleans. “I’m taking it seriously. I want my kids to be Democrats. I want this party to be safe for my kids in the future.”

“There is a divide in our party on this issue. This is a moment that calls for shared dialogue and calls for shared advocacy,” Martin said in August. He called on the task force “of stakeholders on all sides of this to continue to have the conversation, to work through this, and bring solutions back to our party.”  

Steph Newton, an Oregon Democrat who was appointed co-chair of the group, drafted a charter for the working group that the body is now editing ahead of its next planned meeting later this month. The group was “convened to support the Democratic Party in advancing a just, secure, and lasting peace in the Middle East, while strengthening internal cohesion across perspectives within the Democratic coalition,” the draft charter states, according to a copy shared with JI.

“I feel like we’ve been a little rudderless,” Newton told JI on Friday after the group met in New Orleans. “I’m taking it seriously. I want my kids to be Democrats. I want this party to be safe for my kids in the future.”

She expressed frustration at working group members who had submitted their own resolutions ahead of last week’s meeting. Newton’s goal is for the group to be able to come up with some kind of compromise language that they can all get behind. 

“We got agreement from folks. We said, ‘Hey, it wasn’t cool that you guys went off and did something like this and just submitted something. You should have come to the group,’” said Newton, who also leads the Oregon Democratic Party’s Jewish caucus. “The next thing that’s going to be coming out of this is going to be coming from the working group.”

Her co-chair on the working group is Shad Murib, the chair of the Colorado Democratic Party. Other members include longtime pro-Palestinian activist James Zogby and Deborah Cunningham-Skurnik, a regional director in the California Democratic Party. 

What the working group members can agree on is the shared goal of electing Democrats. A DNC spokesperson told JI that this is the lens through which the working group views its mandate: winning elections.  

“I think certainly there are some people for whom the message is more important than the election,” said Goldwyn, the North Dakota Democrat. “But I think that’s not where most Americans and most DNC members and most voters are.”

Democratic Party activists on Thursday voted to reject a measure that criticized the involvement of AIPAC in Democratic primaries and the American political system. 

The resolution was debated during a meeting of the Democratic National Committee’s Rules Committee at the DNC’s New Orleans meeting. Committee members were considering new policy resolutions, including one introduced by a Florida activist that took aim at AIPAC and the group’s “undue influence over democratic debate and policymaking.” It was voted down in a voice vote.

“The DNC made clear today that all Democrats, including millions who are AIPAC members, have the right to participate fully in the democratic process,” AIPAC spokesperson Deryn Sousa told Jewish Insider.

Jewish Democratic advocates who were in the meeting room praised the decision. 

“We’re pleased that the resolution that wrongly singled out AIPAC was defeated, and that the other anti-Israel resolutions failed to move forward. These measures would be a gift to Republicans, would further fracture our party and do nothing to bring Israelis and Palestinians closer to peace,” Democratic Majority for Israel CEO Brian Romick, who attended the meeting, told JI after the vote. 

Halie Soifer, the CEO of the Jewish Democratic Council of America, said the group agrees with the goal of getting dark money out of politics but that AIPAC should not be targeted explicitly.

“We agree with the rejection of dark money in politics — a topic covered in another more expansive resolution adopted by the committee — but also believe that singling out any individual organization is both unproductive and unnecessarily divisive,” Soifer, who also attended the meeting, told JI. 

Earlier in the meeting, the committee voted to support a measure “condemning the influence of dark money in the 2026 Democratic primary elections” that called out the artificial intelligence and cryptocurrency industries. 

The vote by the DNC’s resolutions committee comes as the Democratic Party faces growing internal strife about its long-standing support for the U.S.-Israel relationship, as some party activists seek to push the group to the left. A new Pew Research Center poll released this week revealed that 80% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents have an unfavorable view of Israel — an increase from 69% who said the same last year. 

Two other resolutions that touched on Israel-related issues were referred to a working group on the Middle East that DNC Chair Ken Martin created last summer to help smooth over some of the party’s fissures on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. 

One of these referred to Israel’s actions in Gaza as a genocide and called for conditioning U.S. military aid to Israel, and the other called for de-escalation in Iran and Gaza. A third resolution on the Middle East, condemning the U.S. missile strike that hit a girls’ school in Iran and killed at least 165 people, passed.

The Democratic National Committee’s resolutions committee is set to consider resolutions condemning AIPAC and Israel at its upcoming meeting next week in New Orleans — a sign of the continued and growing discord in the party over Middle East policy. 

It’s unclear at this point how great of a chance the resolutions stand of passing in their current form, but they are emerging as the AIPAC brand has been tarnished inside the Democratic Party.

The resolution targeting AIPAC, described in a resolution packet obtained by Jewish Insider as a “Resolution On Electoral Integrity, Transparency, And Limiting The Influence Of Corporate Money In Democratic Elections,” specifically calls out the pro-Israel group for its spending.

“The use of massive outside spending to support or oppose candidates based on their positions regarding international conflicts or foreign governments raises concerns about undue influence over democratic debate and policymaking, potentially constraining elected officials’ ability to represent the views of their constituents including the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) spending approximately $14 million in a single Illinois Democratic primary,” the resolution reads.

It goes on to accuse “corporate money PACs” of also weighing in against “candidates who have advocated for Palestinian human rights, ceasefire efforts, or changes to U.S. foreign policy.” It states that opposition to such spending should be part of the party’s 2028 platform. Though the rest of the resolution is generally aimed at condemning dark money and independent spending in primaries, AIPAC is the only group singled out by name.

AIPAC and the DNC declined to comment on the resolution.

The resolution was submitted by a DNC delegate from Florida who pushed a resolution last year calling for an arms embargo and a suspension of U.S. aid to Israel, which was ultimately rejected by the same panel. At DNC Chair Ken Martin’s direction, the DNC set up a working group to discuss Israel-related issues.

In addition to the AIPAC resolution, another resolution highlights accusations of genocide against Israel and suggests that Israeli military units are in violation of U.S. arms sales laws, requiring a suspension or conditioning of arms transfers. A third condemns U.S. and Israeli military operations against Iran and its partners, and calls for conditions on U.S. aid to Israel.

Democratic insiders took differing views on whether the resolutions — particularly the one relating to AIPAC — are likely to pass in their current form.

Halie Soifer, the CEO of the Jewish Democratic Council of America, emphasized that any of the 44 members of the resolutions committee can introduce resolutions. She said that the fact of a resolution being introduced doesn’t mean that it will be considered by or adopted by the full DNC. Resolutions are debated and can be amended by the resolutions committee before they are voted on.

“What you’re seeing here doesn’t reflect a position that’s been adopted by the DNC. It reflects one person[’s] — who filed these resolutions — views,” Soifer said. “I don’t expect that these resolutions will be adopted as they’re drafted.”

Soifer argued that, though there’s “broad concern” about dark money across the U.S. political system, targeting AIPAC in particular doesn’t serve the goal of combating the issue as a whole.

“There are many ways to express such concern, I don’t think solely identifying one organization —  especially not in this incredibly difficult moment when such a singling out can be viewed as potentially antisemitic — I don’t think that that is effective,” Soifer said.

A DNC official told JI that the resolutions committee is required by DNC bylaws to consider all resolutions as long as they are compliant with DNC rules, that the committee considers dozens of resolutions at each meeting — totaling more than a hundred in the last year — and that the resolutions are not legally binding. If the resolutions committee votes to advance a resolution, it is then voted on by the entire DNC.

Manny Houle, a Democratic pro-Israel strategist in Minnesota, said that he also doesn’t see the AIPAC resolution going forward because it lacks “teeth” — the DNC “can’t tell candidates where they can and cannot raise money … that’s not our purview.” He also emphasized the diversity of DNC delegates, many of whom do not have an intensive focus on AIPAC or the Middle East.

He also lamented that some Democratic activists seem “hyper-focused on something that doesn’t impact [the day-to-day lives of Americans] and [something] they have very little knowledge on, but they have big emotions for,” referring to the situation in the Middle East. But he also predicted the party will ultimately come together around a nuanced position of supporting allies and opposing Iranian aggression while also opposing “needless war.”

But another senior Jewish Democrat, speaking to JI on condition of anonymity, predicted that an anti-AIPAC resolution of some form could move forward, pointing to discontent and frustration among Democratic insiders over AIPAC’s spending to block former Rep. Tom Malinowski’s (D-NJ) special election primary bid earlier this year, as well as its involvement in Democratic primaries in Illinois.

“I think anyone who is surprised by this sort of potential action by the DNC hasn’t been paying close attention to how AIPAC has been seen within the Democratic Party, especially after their relatively recent decision to get actively involved in Democratic primaries,” the Jewish Democrat said. “The Democratic Party is going to respond when outside groups try to manipulate primaries.”

The Jewish leader said that AIPAC has alienated even some Democrats who were previously aligned with or had donated to AIPAC through its recent political maneuvering, potentially putting more fuel on the fire.

At the same time, the leader urged the party to “go out of their way to ensure that they were not singling out AIPAC for any other reason than it was actively involved in Democratic primaries, which of course other outside forces were too. It’s totally legitimate to criticize a pack in a way that you would criticize any other PAC or outside organization trying to influence Democratic primaries.”

Joel Rubin, a Democratic strategist, former senior J Street official and former Jewish liaison for Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-VT) presidential campaign, emphasized that he’s worked at odds with AIPAC at many points in his career, but said he is nonetheless concerned about the singling out and targeting of the group.

“Anytime you single out a specific organization where … at least half of the members are Democrats, and you say they’re banned, you’re opening up a litmus test Pandora’s box that is not going to be easily shut. It’s just bad politics,” Rubin said. “There are ways to criticize — as there should be — an organization’s views and even their electoral efforts without putting forward a resolution of policy of the party that is creating a dynamic that will only further alienate Jewish Democratic voters, period.”

Jewish Americans, he emphasized, have been a core constituency to the Democratic Party for decades, as voters, organizers and fundraisers, and the specific targeting of AIPAC “is a great way to kick out perhaps the most loyal voting bloc from the party.” He said that the effort “plays right into the Republicans’ hands.”

And, Rubin noted, the DNC has no ability to control which candidates run in Democratic primaries, from whom they accept contributions or how AIPAC and its supporters spend their money.

He also predicted that some Democratic activists would treat the resolution, and rejection of AIPAC, as an organizing tool and litmus test for Democratic candidates going forward, regardless of whether this particular resolution is approved.

“It’s going to take leadership amongst people to say, ‘This is not how we treat people in our party. This is not what we do. And if we have a problem with AIPAC and the way they use dark money and the way they have Republican donors go through in a sort of stalking horse, we should call that out and point that out every single time,’” Rubin said. “But that does not mean every single dollar that AIPAC uses … is solely Republican.” 

Moderate congressional Democrats are pushing back against claims from anti-Israel activists, sparked by recriminations over an unreleased Democratic National Committee post-2024 election analysis, that the party’s position on Israel during the war in Gaza was a decisive factor in Vice President Kamala Harris’ election loss.

Speaking to Jewish Insider, the lawmakers rejected the notion that the Biden administration and Harris campaign’s approach to Israel was the decisive factor in the defeat, instead pointing to broader political dynamics.

They also called on the DNC to release the post-election autopsy, expressing confidence that the findings wouldn’t indicate that taking a stronger anti-Israel line would have helped Harris win more votes.

“I don’t think that was the issue in the election. I disagree with that conclusion,” Rep. Brad Schneider (D-IL) told JI. “Israel is our country’s strongest ally in the Middle East, one of the strongest allies in the world, and I can tell you that my colleagues here overwhelmingly support a strong U.S.-Israel relationship.”

Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL) echoed those sentiments, telling JI that “the idea that the vice president lost every swing state because she wasn’t more extreme on this issue is laughable.” He called on Democratic officials to “release the report.”

“I mean, this is ridiculous,” said Moskowitz. “You got Democrats talking about how we should release the report on Epstein … now they should release [the DNC autopsy report].” 

Rep. Greg Landsman (D-OH), who represents a swing district in Ohio, also called for transparency, but cautioned against narrowing the post-election analysis to a single issue.

“That’s what the party should do,” Landsman said of releasing the report. “The country, they want us to focus entirely on the voters … which means that it’s going to be about their economic conditions, it’s going to be about their safety, it’s going to be about how we invest in their communities, it’s going to be about how we make their lives better. That’s the winning formula.”

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) told JI he had not heard of the autopsy, however, he stated that he questions “the veracity of that report,” adding that he “strongly disagrees” with the assertion that Harris lost due to her stance on Israel.

“There were a number of reasons why she lost,” said Blumenthal. “I have not spoken with anybody associated with the DNC about this report. I have no idea what the report says, but it may be wise to release the report.” 

Senior congressional correspondent Marc Rod contributed reporting.

Speaking to members of the Florida Democratic Party Jewish Caucus over Zoom on Wednesday, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) accused the Trump administration of not working in good faith to combat antisemitism, discussed recent Democratic National Committee votes on Israel and offered a strong defense of Israel against a growing chorus of critics.

Wasserman Schultz argued that a series of moves by the Trump administration — attempting to place new conditions on Nonprofit Security Grant Program funding, gutting the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights and eliminating Justice Department programs focused on hate crimes — show that the administration’s focus on antisemitism isn’t genuine.

“None of that makes us safer, and all of it demonstrates that they don’t really care about taking care of our community. They aren’t concerned about antisemitism, they are concerned about maintaining power,” she said. “Let’s not let our community members believe the rhetoric and the BS.”

Highlighting the administration’s moves on NSGP funding, Wasserman Schultz noted the long freeze in reimbursements from the program, and said that the administration had also tried to demand that all NSGP recipients cooperate with immigration enforcement authorities and eliminate any diversity, equity and inclusion programs to make them eligible for funding.

She said that advocates had worked to ensure that the immigration demands were dropped, but said that “the DEI part is still being litigated.”

She said that universities largely “deserve the criticism and deserve to be investigated by an Office of Civil Rights that would be robustly funded. But if Trump cared about that, he wouldn’t have cut their budget in half and fired half their employees.”

The former Democratic National Committee chair also spoke about the recent DNC debate over a pair of Israel-related resolutions. One, which called for an arms embargo on Israel, was defeated, while one calling for a ceasefire, the release of hostages and humanitarian aid passed the Resolutions Committee but was then withdrawn.

“They moved past the issue, but there were many of us that had to work very hard to communicate our deep concern and opposition” to the resolution calling for an arms embargo, Wasserman Schultz said. “Thankfully, because our party does support the U.S.-Israel relationship, and because our party does believe that Israel should remain a Jewish and democratic state, that resolution was defeated.”

Addressing criticisms of Israel more broadly, Wasserman Schultz affirmed that she is a Zionist and emphasized that Hamas, by carrying out the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks on Israel, was responsible for starting the war and could end it by releasing the hostages.

“Israel … are not aggressors. They don’t engage in land acquisition. They are only interested in living in peace with their neighbors,” she said. “The wars that have occurred across the millennia have almost exclusively, and certainly in modern times exclusively, been initiated by outside terrorist groups or other countries invading Israel.”

Wasserman Schultz emphasized the need for a ceasefire, the release of hostages, the flow of humanitarian aid into Gaza and the end of Hamas as a security threat to Israel and a menace to the Palestinian people.

She blamed Hamas for the issues with humanitarian aid distribution, given the group’s theft of aid and the threat it poses to those who distribute it. “If they continue to be obstructionist and prevent humanitarian aid from getting to their own people, then they will continue to struggle.”

Wasserman Schultz said that “propaganda … is being used to make Israel look like they are the evil aggressors and oppressors,” calling it “outrageous.” She called out media photos featuring emaciated children, many of whom were revealed to have congenital diseases, as proof of mass starvation in Gaza as one example of such a phenomenon.

“We know as Jewish people that, at the end of the day, we’re very easy to blame. It is really like a reflexive, default position for far too many people. It’s embedded, it’s in societal norms,” Wasserman Schultz said. “This is happening regularly and we have to make sure that we are really fighting back.”

She said that criticism of Israel isn’t inherently antisemitic, but that the slogans “from the river to the sea” and “globalize the intifada” are clear calls for the destruction of Israel and the death of the Jewish people, and that “that is a very serious form of antisemitism. That shouldn’t be open for debate.”

Pro-Israel Democrats expressed cautious optimism about the unexpected decision by Democratic National Committee Chairman Ken Martin to withdraw his resolution pressing for humanitarian aid to Gaza and for the release of hostages held by Hamas, which was unanimously approved by party members on Tuesday at the DNC’s annual summer meeting held in Minneapolis.

Martin, in a sudden reversal, announced he would pull the resolution after DNC members rejected a dueling measure, opposed by pro-Israel groups, that had endorsed an arms embargo and a suspension of U.S. military aid to Israel. Instead, he said he would create a task force “comprised of stakeholders on all sides” of the Israel debate to pursue what he called a “shared dialogue” on an increasingly divisive issue.

“This was a surprise ending to this meeting,” Halie Soifer, the CEO of the Jewish Democratic Council of America, which helped draft the pro-Israel measure and privately advocated for its passage, told Jewish Insider on Tuesday. 

Despite Martin’s 11th-hour reversal, Soifer said she was satisfied with the outcome, noting the DNC also passed a resolution condemning antisemitism that, coupled with its rejection of the arms embargo proposal, “reflects where the party stands” on major issues concerning Israel and the Jewish community.

“It’s my sense,” she added of Martin, “that he introduced and ensured passage of this resolution to defeat the other resolution,” which she said “was completely out of step with the views of the party.”

Soifer said she hopes to join the proposed task force “to discuss the path forward” on approaching Israel, acknowledging internal tensions that have roiled the party in recent years. Martin “clearly recognized that there are a range of strongly held views on this matter, and he wants to make sure that those voices are heard,” she told JI.

Martin has not yet shared additional details on the task force, and the DNC did not return a request for comment from JI. Latonya Reeves, a DNC member in Minneapolis, told JI on Tuesday that she had not been further informed of the task force — which she called “the best way to move forward” on the issue.

Sara Forman, who leads the New York Solidarity Network, a local pro-Israel group that aligns with Democrats, said she was broadly “encouraged” that the DNC had chosen “not to recommend” what she dismissed as a “one-sided resolution against Israel,” arguing that the party “represents far more than its progressive base.”

“I’m always one for conversation, and think that talking about things is an important step, so I’m going to offer grace to Martin in this regard,” she said of his announcement. Still, she added of the failed resolution, “I think it’s a bigger concern overall that the Democratic Party seems to be uniquely singling out Israel for rebuke or scrutiny in a way that no other U.S. ally is rebuked or scrutinized.”

A spokesperson for Democratic Majority for Israel, which released a statement praising the DNC’s votes before Martin revealed he would pull the resolution, said it was “pleased that the anti-Israel measure was decisively defeated by the committee,” but declined to comment more broadly on what transpired at the end of the meeting.

Brian Romick, DMFI’s president and CEO, said in an interview with JI that he viewed the outcome on Tuesday as “a win” for the pro-Israel community, in light of the potential for a more hostile debate. “The bad resolution was rejected and Ken’s compromise resolution also passed the committee,” Romick said. “That all happened publicly” and “reaffirmed where the party stands on Israel,” he said. “Anything else beyond that is just inside baseball.”

Some Democratic insiders familiar with internal party dynamics indicated that Martin had chosen to change course because he anticipated a disruptive floor debate over his resolution, which was poised to face broader scrutiny during the DNC’s general session on Wednesday.

“He’s worried about what would happen at the meeting,” one party source informed of the matter said on Tuesday. “On one hand, viewed from there, it makes sense and seems like a rational move,” the source reasoned, while also noting that it has “some real downsides.”

On the other hand, “when you punt something to a task force you actually continue the debate, because now it’s going to be a big fight” over who is included in the committee, the source said. “Then it becomes hard to move past.”

Manny Houle, a Democratic pro-Israel strategist in Minneapolis, said Martin’s maneuver was tactically smart — as DNC leadership seeks to avoid “internal proxy fights and focus messaging on pushing back against” the Trump administration in advance of the upcoming elections. “It is often a tactic to give your most ardent detractors busy work so you can focus on the work that matters,” he explained.

The party’s pro-Israel wing knows it has “the power to push back,” Houle told JI. “It’s not worth giving more air to the extremist factions.” The debate over Israel “is not going away anytime soon,” he added. “But we’ve shown where we stand and hopefully there are more pressing things that we need to give oxygen to.” 

Whatever Martin’s intentions, Susan Turnbull, a former DNC vice chair, said she was excited by the prospect of a task force, suggesting that it would be well-timed to take place between the conventions. 

“What I think is the case is that this, of all issues, needs to have consensus and that what he wanted in his first meeting is not to have winners and losers,” she told JI. “He wanted to come to a good result for collaboration.”

“I’m giving him a lot of credit because we have a hard enough time within the Jewish community dealing with this issue,” she said, adding that it will be “important that every perspective be considered” as the DNC hones its approach to the Middle East.

It remains to be seen if Martin, who on Tuesday acknowledged a “divide” in the party over Israel, will find partnership on the opposing end of the issue. Allison Minnerly, the 26-year-old DNC member who had introduced the failed measure on Gaza, which faced criticism for not mentioning Hamas, voiced disappointment with his decision and said he was “prolonging” the conversation rather than taking a position to align the party with a base she views as amenable to her views on Israel.

Still, as the DNC moves to reach a tenuous detente on Israel, some pro-Israel Democrats said that any future resolution on the issue should reflect values that have long been espoused by the party, even as they have faced ongoing pushback from the activist left. 

“The vast majority of American Jews, and Americans more broadly, understand the complexity of the conflict — wanting to see Israel’s security protected and the remaining hostages released, the humanitarian crisis in Gaza truly addressed, and all parties work toward a future in which both Israelis and Palestinians are safe and free,” Amy Spitalnick, CEO of the nonpartisan Jewish Council for Public Affairs, told JI. “Any resolution on Gaza should reflect those widely-held values.”

Amanda Berman, CEO of the Zioness Action Fund, a progressive pro-Israel advocacy group, said on Tuesday that “there is legitimate critique and concern about this devastating war dragging on — and Democrats should stand staunchly with the Israeli public as it models dissent, protest and a pro-democracy movement the American left should emulate.”

“To the extent that any fringe element of the Democratic Party is willing to abandon Israel and the American Jewish community,” Berman said, “they will be abandoning true progressive values, liberation for persecuted minority communities, our historic alliances and America’s national security.”

Shortly after members of the Democratic National Committee passed a resolution on Tuesday voicing support for humanitarian aid to Gaza and calling for the release of hostages held by Hamas, Ken Martin, the party chair, announced that he would withdraw the measure, which he had introduced, and instead form a task force to continue discussing the matter.

The surprise reversal came even as the DNC, now holding its annual summer meeting in Minneapolis, had voted to reject a dueling and more controversial resolution that had backed an arms embargo as well as a suspension of U.S. military aid to Israel, raising alarms among Jewish and pro-Israel Democrats who rallied behind Martin’s effort, co-sponsored by DNC leadership.

“There is a divide in our party on this issue. This is a moment that calls for shared dialogue and calls for shared advocacy,” Martin said after the competing measure had been voted down. “And that’s why I’ve decided today, at this moment, listening to the testimony and listening to people in our party, to withdraw my amendment resolution to allow us to move forward in a conversation on this as a party.”

He said that he would “appoint a committee or a task force comprised of stakeholders on all sides of this to continue to have the conversation, to work through this, and bring solutions back to our party.”

Martin announced his decision after huddling with co-sponsors of the failed resolution, which also called for recognition of a Palestinian state and was expected to be voted down. The measure additionally drew criticism for not mentioning Hamas — in contrast with Martin’s proposal, which also supported a two-state solution. The measures, each backing an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, were nonbinding and meant to telegraph the party’s stances on an issue that has increasingly fueled internal tensions.

His about-face underscores the pressures that Martin, who became DNC chair in February, is facing from an outspoken contingent of anti-Israel activists who are now aggressively seeking to push the party away from its traditional commitment to defending the U.S.-Israel relationship — which has come under growing strain amid party backlash to the ongoing war in Gaza.

Martin has offered no additional details on what motivated his abrupt decision or his new plan to create a task force. The DNC did not respond to a request for comment on Tuesday.

His sentiments echoed the “big-tent” rhetoric that he had endorsed when he ran for DNC chair — with some pro-Israel party members voicing reservations that his approach could be overly accommodating to extreme views and fail to enforce red lines on Middle East policy.

Martin’s Gaza resolution was unanimously approved by the DNC’s Resolutions Committee, while the dueling measure, introduced by a 26-year-old member from Florida, was rejected in a voice vote.

The committee did not take a recorded vote and no members asked for a breakdown, a person familiar with the process said. An attempt to add language into the alternate resolution calling for the release of all hostages and to oppose offensive weapons to Israel also fell flat, reflecting a failed effort to unify the resolutions that preceded the votes this week.

The meeting on Tuesday was expected to be heated but largely avoided the sort of drama that animated its convention last year, drawing more attention for Martin’s decision to yank his own proposal near the end of the proceedings.

Even as Martin called for a continued dialogue on the matter, Allison Minnerly, the DNC member who had introduced the failed resolution, expressed disappointment with his choice and said she believed he was “prolonging” the conversation rather than taking a position to align the party with a base that she views as amenable to her views on Israel.

When Democratic National Committee members gather in Minneapolis later this month for the party’s summer meeting, they’ll consider two Israel-related resolutions — a more balanced one, which has the backing of party chair Ken Martin, and an anti-Israel measure that calls for an arms embargo and a suspension of U.S. military aid to Israel. 

Sources within the DNC say they don’t expect the anti-Israel resolution, which was authored by a committee member from Florida, to pass. But the fact that it will be considered by the body has unnerved Jewish Democrats, who are working behind the scenes to promote the more balanced resolution. That one calls for an “immediate ceasefire and the unconditional release of all hostages, living and deceased, held by Hamas.” It also reiterates Democratic Party support for a two-state solution. (The text of the two resolutions was first reported by Semafor.)

The Martin-backed resolution is co-sponsored by the DNC’s entire leadership, including DNC associate chair Stuart Appelbaum, the president of the Jewish Labor Committee, according to a copy of the resolution obtained by Jewish Insider. Both measures will first be voted on by the DNC’s Resolutions Committee.  

“It sends a strong signal that the chair himself has chosen to sponsor and lead the resolution that clearly condemns the Oct. 7 terrorist attack on Israel, affirms Democrats’ commitment to bringing home the hostages and addresses the need for humanitarian aid in Gaza,” Jewish Democratic Council of America CEO Halie Soifer told JI on Wednesday. “We are hopeful the DNC Resolutions Committee will reject the arms embargo resolution and reaffirm its support of a two-state solution and a release of the hostages.”

A DNC spokesperson declined to comment on the specific measures. “Any DNC member can submit resolutions for fellow members to consider,” the spokesperson told JI, noting that “submitted resolutions might not necessarily represent the views of the entire DNC.” 

The anti-Israel resolution was submitted first; the competing resolution came later, as an attempt to reiterate the positions adopted in the Democratic Party platform at the convention in Chicago last year. The platform stated that former President Joe Biden and former Vice President Kamala Harris were committed to “Israel’s security, its qualitative military edge [and] its right to defend itself.” The measure being advanced by Martin and his allies leading the DNC strongly condemns the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks, and it takes aim at both Hamas militants and “far-right ministers in the government of Israel.” 

JDCA and Democratic Majority for Israel have both been part of conversations with DNC officials to offer suggestions on the Martin-backed resolution. 

DMFI CEO Brian Romick said in a statement that the group is “deeply troubled by the introduction of a flawed, irresponsible” anti-Israel resolution  “that will further sow division within our party and do nothing to help bring an end to the Israel-Hamas.” 

Other left-leaning Jewish groups, like Zioness, offered feedback as well and called on Democrats to reject the anti-Israel resolution, which did not mention Hamas or the Oct. 7, 2023, terror attacks. 

“DNC members should vote against this attempt to reopen and rewrite the party platform that was adopted with overwhelming enthusiasm at the convention less than one year ago,” Zioness CEO Amanda Berman told JI. “Americans want to see Democrats fighting for housing, healthcare, education, economic opportunity and democracy, not fighting about support of our democratic allies abroad.” 

The intra-party fight comes soon after Martin faced criticism from some Jewish leaders for an interview in which Martin fumbled a question about New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani’s refusal to condemn the phrase “globalize the intifada.” 

Democratic National Committee Chairman Ken Martin defended himself on Friday amid criticism that his response to a question about New York City Democratic mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani’s refusal to condemn the “globalize the intifada” slogan did not sufficiently express his own view that the phrase should be condemned.

“The right-wing lie machine is at it again. That’s not what I said in this interview. I’ve never supported or condoned the phrase ‘globalize the intifada’, a phrase which is reckless and dangerous, as it can been [sic] seen as a green light to terror, and it should be unequivocally condemned,” Martin wrote in a response on X to the Washington Free Beacon.

“Let me be clear, at a time of rising antisemitism, there’s no place for rhetoric that can be seen as a call to violence,” he added.

Several Jewish Democrats and organizations that represent them defended Martin’s handling of the Wednesday “PBS NewsHour” interview fallout.

Halie Soifer, CEO of the Jewish Democratic Council of America, told Jewish Insider on Friday that, “We welcome the clarification from Chair Martin that the phrase ‘globalize the intifada’ is reckless and dangerous because it can be seen as a green light to terror. Chair Martin has never supported or condoned this phrase, and has now made it clear that there’s no place for rhetoric that can be seen as a call to violence in the Democratic Party.”

“He also said that this phrase should be unequivocally condemned, and we would like to see all Democrats do exactly that,” Soifer told JI. 

The Democratic Majority for Israel said in a statement that the group “appreciates the recognition by DNC chair Ken Martin that the phrase ‘Globalize the Intifada’ is a dangerous call to incite violent action against Jews & Israelis.” 

“During the last two intifadas, thousands of innocent Israelis — Arabs and Jews — were victims of Palestinian terrorism. Words have meanings, and the meaning of that phrase is clear to those who have experienced the intifadas. This incitement of violence should never be acceptable and must be condemned unequivocally,” the statement continued.

Martin’s Friday comment was met with criticism from several Jewish Democrats.

Georgia Democratic state Rep. Esther Panitch took issue with the DNC chairman’s response, writing on X, “I am not right-wing, and I know what I heard. You have welcomed the person who refused to condemn the phrase you call dangerous. Why?”

Sara Forman, the executive director of the New York Solidarity Network, an organization representing Jews in New York, criticized Martin in a lengthy X post on Friday for his handling of the interview question and his subsequent tweet clarifying his position. 

“There is no excuse the chair of @TheDemocrats could come up with to put the toothpaste back into the tube. Ken Martin is the chair of the DNC and his idiotic ‘big tent’ comment is now a party position with a high cost – the loss of normal Democrats around the country,” Forman wrote.

“Incumbents will be held accountable for his words against Republican challengers who will make it very difficult and expensive to hold swing districts. And D challengers will be playing right into the hands of their Republican incumbent opponents when they distance themselves from his comments,” she continued. “For a party chair to fundamentally misunderstand his role, which is to fundraise so Democrats can win elections, is insane.”

Ken Martin, the chair of the Democratic National Committee, spent Friday calling Jewish leaders, seeking to reassure them that he does not condone the phrase “globalize the intifada,” two sources with knowledge of the meetings told Jewish Insider. Among the leaders he called were senior officials at the Anti-Defamation League and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. 

The meetings came shortly after a clip of Martin discussing New York City Democratic mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani went viral online. PBS NewsHour anchor Amna Nawaz asked Martin to respond to concerns from Jewish colleagues that Mamdani’s refusal to condemn the phrase “globalize the intifada” was “very disturbing, potentially dangerous” — and asked Martin outright whether he agreed.

“There’s no candidate in this party that I agree 100 percent of the time with, to be honest with you. There’s things that I don’t agree with Mamdani that he said,” Martin told Nawaz. In the interview, he did not specifically address the “globalize the intifada” language. 

The clip quickly garnered backlash, and on Friday morning Martin began doing damage control. 

“I’ve never supported or condoned the phrase ‘globalize the intifada’, a phrase which is reckless and dangerous, as it can been [sic] seen as a green light to terror, and it should be unequivocally condemned,” Martin wrote in a Friday morning post on X. “Let me be clear, at a time of rising antisemitism, there’s no place for rhetoric that can be seen as a call to violence.” 

In the Friday phone calls, Martin faced criticism from the Jewish leaders, the two sources confirmed. But a DNC senior advisor told JI that Martin made clear he stood with them against the harmful rhetoric. 

“By the end of it there was an understanding that Ken does understand and is aligned with the community and that frankly people want full-throated leadership,” the advisor said. “This language isn’t about Democrats. This is just not acceptable, period, and as a party it’s not acceptable.” 

But Martin still held his fire against Mamdani because Mamdani himself did not utter the phrase “globalize the intifada,” the DNC advisor explained. Rather, Mamdani defended its use by others. 

In the PBS interview, Martin said he is committed to leading a “big tent” party.

“You win by bringing people into your coalition. We have conservative Democrats. We have centrist Democrats. We have labor progressives like me, and we have this new brand of Democrat, which is the leftist,” Martin said. 

Democratic National Committee Chairman Ken Martin declined on Wednesday to criticize New York City Democratic mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani’s refusal to condemn the “globalize the intifada” slogan. The DNC chair, who was elected earlier this year, praised the party for being a “big tent” comprising different ideologies, including “leftists” such as Mamdani.

Asked during a “PBS NewsHour” interview about concerns from Jewish Democrats regarding Mamdani’s refusal to condemn the phrase, Martin replied, “There’s no candidate in this party that I agree 100 percent of the time with, to be honest with you. There’s things that I don’t agree with Mamdani that he said.”

Martin said that he had learned through his 14 years as chairman of the Minnesota Democratic Party and his tenure at the DNC “that you win through addition. You win by bringing people into your coalition. We have conservative Democrats. We have centrist Democrats. We have labor progressives like me, and we have this new brand of Democrat, which is the leftist.”

“We win by bringing people into that coalition. And at the end of the day, for me, that’s the type of party we’re going to lead. We are a big tent party. Yes, it leads to dissent and debate, and there’s differences of opinions on a whole host of issues. But we should celebrate that as a party and recognize, at the end of the day, we’re better because of it,” Martin said.

Martin also argued that national Democrats could learn from Mamdani’s primary campaign performance in terms of focusing their message away from President Donald Trump and toward a forward-looking vision.

“He campaigned for something. And this is a critical piece. We can’t just be in a perpetual state of resisting Donald Trump. Of course, we have to resist Donald Trump. There’s no doubt about it for all the reasons we just talked about. But we also have to give people a sense of what we’re for, what the Democratic Party is fighting for, and what we would do if they put us back in power,” Martin said.

“One of the lessons from Mamdani’s campaign is that he focused on affordability. He focused on a message that was resonant with voters and he campaigned for something, not against other people or against other things. He campaigned on a vision of how he was going to make New York City a better place to live,” he continued.

Martin praised the methods by which Mamdani’s campaign got its message out.

“The other lessons, of course, is the tactics he used to get his message out, both a very aggressive in-person campaigning, meeting voters where they’re at, and then also in those digital spaces, using very creative messaging to cut through the noise and to get to voters in an inexpensive but authentic way,” he said.

The Democratic National Committee has tapped Matt Nosanchuk, a former Obama White House liaison, as the party’s point person for the Jewish community.  

Filling in a void: The DNC hasn’t had a permanent Jewish outreach representative since the departure of Aaron Weinberg, who served as director of Jewish engagement during the 2016 election cycle.

Stepping up: “This is hands down the most important election of our lifetime. With so much on the line, I am honored to have the opportunity to join the DNC team working under Chair Tom Perez’s leadership to defeat Donald Trump and ensure Democratic victories at every level,” Nosenchuk told Jewish Insider. “American Jews vote Democratic by wide margins because on issue after issue, our values align with those of the Democratic Party. That is truer than ever this election year.”

Known in the community: Nosanchuk, who served as Jewish liaison for the majority of President Barack Obama’s second term, brings extensive experience in dealing with a diverse Jewish community — particularly during the debate over the Iran nuclear deal in 2015 — to the party as the Democratic primary shifts into high gear. Among the White House liaison’s responsibilities is organizing the annual White House Hanukkah party. As a result of Nosanchuk’s efforts to double the number of invited guests, the White House now hosts two separate parties.