cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/34728083
August 15 2025, 10:38 a.m.
When it comes to Israel’s handling of the war on Gaza, Democrats are nearly united. Only 8 percent of party members support Israel’s military actions, according to a Gallup poll from last month.
A vote at the Democratic National Committee meeting later this month could once again expose the yawning rift between the party’s base and its leaders, who are lining up to oppose a resolution against arms for Israel.
Allison Minnerly, the 26-year-old committee member sponsoring the measure, told The Intercept Thursday that Democratic leaders risk further alienating party members — especially young voters — if they kill the symbolic resolution.
“Our voters, our base, they are saying that they do not want U.S. dollars to enable further death and starvation anywhere across the world, particularly in Gaza,” said Minnerly, a first-term DNC member from Florida. “I don’t think it should be a hard decision for us to say that clearly.”
Dear Ken (and DNC),
I recognize that you’re in an abusive relationship with AIPAC (et al), but aren’t quite ready to accept that a breakup is the only way to fix your problems.
I just want you to know that we’re here to support you through this process, but only because the alternative is apparently becoming them.
Please fix your shit in short order before the entire world burns down.
Sincerely, Basically everyone at this point
That’s one way to ensure a loss in 2026.
“Hey kid, wanna be complicit in a genocide?”
The actual part about the DNC:
In response to Minnerly’s resolution, Martin and other party leaders have offered one of their own that largely mirrors the 2024 party platform and does not call for the suspension of military aid to Israel, according to a copy obtained by The Intercept and reports from multiple outlets. (The DNC did not respond to a request for comment.)
So…
Not at all what the headline says.
The “multiple outlets” links to Jewish Insider. And searching I could only find articles from pro-Israel or rightwing sources. Then Semafor whose goal of using AI to tailor articles to users always smelt like propaganda to me.
But the “DNC version” calls for a two state solution, a cease fire, and release of hostages.
And next month people can absolutely vote for both. It’s not one or the other. If the more progressive plan fails, maybe the other won’t. But I can’t exactly find any differences between the two, besides iron dome funding. And a significant amount of DNC members still will never refund that.
Quick edit:
In case it needs said again:
Billionaires and others that like neoliberals are going to spend a shit ton of time, energy, and money to convince progressives that voting in Dem primaries is pointless.
They’re doing that because they’re scared.
Vote in the primary, no matter what happens. We can’t waste this chance, if we do we won’t likely get another.
But the “DNC version” calls for a two state solution, a cease fire, and release of hostages.
This is empty rhetoric designed to fool people. What about the thousand of Palestinian hostages (mostly women and children) held in Israeli torture prisons? Is the DNC asking for that?
There is no two state solution, it’s a neo-liberal distraction. What we need is an end to the genocide that Democrats support funding, dismantling of the occupation that Democrats support, and an end to apartheid that Democrats pretend doesn’t exist. Anything short of that is a distraction.
It’s amazing how everyone woke up to Trump’s attempts to distract from the Epstein case, but willing to swallow two state bullshit from the DNC.
How is replacing the resolution to ban weapons sales to Israel with one that doesn’t do that…“not at all what the headline says”?
Because that’s exactly what they’re doing: going out of their way to continue providing arms to Israel
How is replacing
Nothing is replacing anything…
Like, you didn’t read my comment or the article?
DNC clearly want their version to pass, without any weapon restrictions, and not the other one. Are you that naive?
DNC clearly want their version to pass
I’m sure they do…
But again, both can pass.
Why wouldn’t you want as many to pass as possible?
Why do you think the existence of a plan B would mean people would change their mind on plan A?
Everyone that would votes yes on the first one, will still vote yes for it.
If it passes, it’s more stringent restrictions take precedence.
If it doesn’t…
Without a plan B, we get nothing.
With a plan B, we have a second chance for some of what we want.
Are you that naive?
Honestly, I think that’s what’s going on. Because I honestly can’t see how someone doesn’t understand this…
I think they’re referring to this section:
After Minnerly put forward her resolution on August 4, she said, representatives of DNC Chair Ken Martin reached out to propose a compromise. But the proposal they offered did not go far enough in calling for pressure on Israel, she said. “Ultimately it was clear to me the conversation they’re having is different from the reality today,” she said.
But that description has a very different tone than the headline. Without knowing exactly what was said, it’s hard to know which framing is more accurate.
deleted by creator
