Debate Over Israel Escalates at Key Democratic Party Meeting

Cameron Landin sat at a microphone in a ballroom full of Democratic National Committee (DNC) members and laid out his case.

A vice president of the College Democrats of America representing his members one final time before his term expires, Landin urged the DNC’s resolutions committee to pass a resolution recognizing what he called “the ongoing heinous and illegal acts against the Palestinian people.”

The DNC had created a Middle East working group in August 2025 to address the party’s divisions on Israel and Gaza, but by the spring meeting, it had produced no public findings or recommendations.

“Some here may say that there is a working group,” Landin told the committee on April 9. “To that, I say that we are in a midterm year, and they have yet to produce any results in a moment where anger has only grown amongst the American people.”

The committee voted to send the resolution back to that working group. It did the same with a second resolution on Iran. A third, which named the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) by name as a source of corrosive outside spending in Democratic primaries, was voted down outright. And a fourth, a broad condemnation of dark money in Democratic elections, passed—but only after amendments stripped out references to specific industries, including artificial intelligence and cryptocurrency.

The next day, when the full DNC membership voted on the resolutions committee’s report, three of the members who spoke against the package all made the same argument: It didn’t go far enough.

None argued it went too far.

The DNC’s spring meeting in New Orleans, held April 9–11, was the latest and most public chapter in a heated debate among members of the Democratic Party. Israel, the influence of AIPAC and other outside spending groups, and the party’s posture toward the war in Gaza remain open questions heading into the 2026 midterm elections.

The party’s own voters have shifted dramatically on these issues. Its governing body has struggled to address concerns among its members, particularly younger Democrats.

Resolution Amended

The resolutions committee’s handling of four related measures on April 9 illustrated the tension.

Resolution 10, submitted by Zayed Kadir of New York—chair of the High School Democrats of America—condemned “the influence of dark money in the 2026 Democratic primary elections.” As originally written, it singled out spending by political action committees (PACs) aligned with the AI and cryptocurrency industries.

PACs are organizations that pool campaign contributions to support or oppose candidates. “Dark money” refers to political spending where the original donors are not publicly disclosed.

Sandra Lee Williams of Georgia offered a package of amendments that removed those specific industry references, making the language apply to all corporate and dark money broadly. Williams argued that the committee should not single out individual industries and pointed to a similar resolution passed in August 2025 that led to the creation of a Middle East task force.

The amendments were passed, and then the resolution. The version the committee approved no longer named anyone.

When the full DNC membership voted the next day, Kadir—the resolution’s own author—spoke against the report because of what the amendments had done.

“The original intent of the resolution was to name AI and crypto, as they are the forces actively fighting against working people in this election cycle,” Kadir told the body. “The amendments made to the resolution strip those names out, giving those industries cover instead of standing behind the American people.”

DNC Chair Ken Martin framed the outcome differently in a post on X after the votes. “We had various resolutions that focused on different industries and groups, and instead of going one-by-one, we passed a blanket repudiation,” he wrote.

AIPAC Debate

Resolution 31 brought the most charged debate of the day.

Submitted by Allison Minnerly of Florida, it named AIPAC and its affiliated super PAC, the United Democracy Project, directly.

A super PAC is an independent expenditure committee that can raise and spend unlimited sums but is not supposed to coordinate with candidates.

The resolution cited more than $100 million in federal election spending by AIPAC during the 2024 cycle. Federal Election Commission records support the claim: AIPAC’s affiliated super PAC, the United Democracy Project, reported spending more than $61 million during the 2023–2024 cycle, while the AIPAC political action committee itself spent more than $57 million—a combined total exceeding $118 million.

AIPAC’s own website says the organization supported 361 pro-Israel Democratic and Republican candidates in 2024 with more than $53 million in direct support.

The group’s website lists support for the top three leaders in both parties in the House—Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.), and Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-Minn.) on the Republican side, and Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), Democratic Whip Katherine Clark (D-Mass.), and Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.) on the Democratic side.

“Democrats overwhelmingly want a party that stands for human rights and against increased conflict in the Middle East,” Minnerly said.

“Seventy-five percent of Democrats currently support blocking further weapons transfers with unconditional military aid to the Israeli government. This resolution regarding dark money goes a step further. I believe that there is merit to calling out different packs with intention—putting face and name to the forces that influence our elected officials. This moment necessitates urgency, it necessitates that we have the hard conversations.”

Lottie Shackelford of Arkansas, a former co-chair of the resolutions committee, urged a vote against it. She argued that the committee had already taken a strong position through Resolution 10, and that naming organizations one by one “would consume the entirety of the committee’s work.”

Peg Schaffer, a DNC member from New Jersey, went further, referencing the recent special election in New Jersey’s 11th Congressional District, where AIPAC-affiliated spending drew national attention.

“A former congressman who was defeated by mistake in CD-11 asked me to please make sure that we don’t single out AIPAC,” Schaffer said. “Because I think it unfairly … it’s a Mideast issue again. We can’t pick on the Jews and expect this committee to be respected.”

In that race, former Rep. Tom Malinowski was pitted against progressive activist Analilia Mejia. AIPAC’s affiliated super PAC spent heavily against Malinowski, who had questioned unconditional aid to the Israeli government. But the spending appeared to backfire. Mejia, who said she agreed that Israel committed genocide in Gaza, overtook Malinowski to win the primary.

John Verdejo, a DNC member from North Carolina, said he opposed singling out AIPAC when other outside groups also spend in Democratic primaries. He pointed to Leaders We Deserve, the PAC founded by David Hogg, as an example of “all these other corporations” spending in Democratic primaries.

Leaders We Deserve is a political action committee founded by David Hogg, the gun control activist and former DNC vice chair who was removed from his leadership role in June 2025 after pushing to use the PAC to challenge long-serving Democrats in safe seats.

Verdejo’s remark linked AIPAC—which critics accuse of spending to defeat progressives who oppose Israeli government policy—with a progressive-aligned group that has targeted Democratic incumbents. This suggests that for some DNC members, the concern is about any outside group exerting influence in Democratic primaries, regardless of ideology.

Resolution 31 failed on a voice vote.

The Working Group

The committee’s other tool for deferring the Israel-related debate—its Middle East working group—came under repeated scrutiny during the meeting.

The task force was announced in August 2025 after an earlier Gaza-related resolution was referred to it. By the time of the spring meeting, it had met four times, said one member of the resolutions committee who said she was also on that committee. It had produced no formal output, no findings, no recommendations, and no public statements.

Resolutions 14 and 15—on Gaza and Iran, respectively—were both referred to the working group after brief debate. Members asked pointed questions about what the group had accomplished.

Landin, who had pressed the same point during the Resolution 14 debate, urged the committee to act rather than defer again.

Peggy Grove of Pennsylvania raised a related concern. “It’s my concern that we do not have any language that is changed as a direct result of the committee working on this,” she said. “At least there’s no—I have not received anything that is marked up with the changes. So if the committee did come up with something, I’d like to see it, please.”

Verdejo also pushed against the committee. “It just can’t be a task force and then next time we have a DNC meeting, it just comes up again,” he said. “No. We want to see your progress. You want to be on the task force? You want to make the hard changes, have the hard discussions? Then do it.”

Ron Harris of Minnesota, co-chair of the resolutions committee, defended the referral process. “This isn’t one of those things where you kick it down the line and committee where things go to die,” Harris said. “These are people working really, really hard over a very thorny issue.”

Sophia Danenberg of Washington, a DNC member who supported referring the resolutions to the task force, acknowledged the concern.

“It’s only had the opportunity to meet once a month so far—that’s only four times—and it’s as heavy enough of an issue that I think that it deserves its work,” she said. But she also urged the committee to set expectations for reporting and a timeline.

Samuel Vilchez Santiago of Florida pressed the point further, asking for a deadline. “We do have an election coming up in November, and I do believe that there will be millions of Americans that will be voting based on this issue on either side,” he said. “So, rather than just a report every month, when are we going to have a resolution and a final report from the committee?”

Numbers Behind the Split

The gap between the DNC’s caution on Israel and its voters’ views has widened.

A Pew Research Center survey published April 7—two days before the resolutions committee met—found that 80 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents held an unfavorable view of Israel, up from 69 percent the previous year and 53 percent in 2022. Among Democrats under 50 years of age, 47 percent held a “very unfavorable” view.

A poll conducted by J Street/GBAO in late March found that 66 percent of Jewish voters opposed AIPAC’s spending Republican donor money against Democrats who are critical of the Netanyahu government, with 52 percent strongly opposing. Among under-35 Jewish Democrats, 66 percent said an AIPAC endorsement made them less likely to support a candidate.

In an X post, AIPAC criticized the J Street poll as inaccurate, alleging biased questions to elicit specific responses.

Meanwhile, outside spending in Democratic primaries has surged, with more than $125 million in outside spending poured into five open Democratic primaries in Illinois alone this cycle.

The top three spenders in Illinois House races were groups affiliated with AIPAC, according to data from AdImpact, an organization that tracks ad buys in political races.

Hard Lines and Shifting Landscape

The split is not clean. Progressives who want the DNC to name AIPAC and put conditions on military aid face resistance from members who worry about alienating donors and weakening candidates in general elections—and from those who see the Israel debate as a distraction from winning.

“Provided that we don’t handcuff ourselves in the general elections—because if the Republicans are going to use dark money in general elections, we should be using our money in general elections, too—if you provide an even playing field, I think then that’s fine,” Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) said.

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), a progressive widely discussed as a potential 2028 presidential contender, has drawn a harder line.

“Two 2028 candidates lobbied against this DNC resolution condemning AIPAC. It failed,” Khanna posted on X. “Anyone who wants to lead this party must condemn and reject AIPAC money.”

Our Revolution—a progressive group founded by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)—said the dark money aspect was worth pursuing.

“A step in the right direction. The DNC is starting to tackle dark and corporate money. Shout out to our folks inside the party pushing this forward,” the group posted on X. “With AIPAC, crypto, and corporate cash flooding our elections, action can’t come quick enough. As our founding chair Larry Cohen said at the DNC meeting this past weekend: ‘We need the party to do something on this issue, not just say something.'”

James Christopher, founder and managing director at James Christopher Communications, told The Epoch Times in an email that the political ground is shifting even among supporters of Israel.

“While AIPAC remains a major force in campaign financing, support for Israel alone is no longer enough to fundraise a candidate to victory,” Christopher said. “Voters have prioritized other issues—and electeds who overlooked local problems for international issues now are being held accountable for their legislative action—or lack thereof—to address high costs of living, public safety concerns, and immigration.”

Beth Balsam, founder of X2PR in New York, offered a view from the other end of the spectrum. “I’ve been voting—and volunteering/donating—blue for decades, but seeing the party open the tent to Jew haters has given me great pause,” she told The Epoch Times in an email. “My vote, dollars, and time are now available to those who condemn this hatred in their own party.”

AIPAC spokesperson Deryn Sousa said in a statement to several media outlets that “the DNC made clear today that all Democrats, including millions who are AIPAC members, have the right to participate fully in the democratic process, and we plan to do just that.”

AIPAC did not respond to a request for comment from The Epoch Times for this report.

The Shadow of 2024

None of this discussion is new. The issue has been building since Oct. 7, 2023, when Hamas attacked Israel. In 2024’s Democratic Party primary, more than 100,000 Michigan Democratic chose “uncommitted” in the primary election to protest then-President Joe Biden’s handling of the subsequent Israel-Hamas war.

In the general election that November, Vice President Kamala Harris lost Dearborn—home to the nation’s largest Arab American community—to Donald Trump, who became the first Republican to win the city since 2000.

Dearborn had backed Biden by a nearly 3-to-1 margin in 2020.

Democrats created the Middle East working group in response. Eight months later, the group has shown nothing publicly or to its own members, and the DNC heads into the 2026 midterms without a unified position on issues that polling shows its own voters care deeply about—and that are actively reshaping its primary elections.

Inside the general session in New Orleans, protesters confronted DNC Chair Ken Martin directly by interrupting him and then being removed from the meeting.

“Why are you afraid of AIPAC?” one shouted. “You’re afraid of the voters! Tell us what happened in 2024.”

At least three people stood up in succession and interrupted Martin at that time, shouting about Israel, AIPAC, and Martin’s decision not to release the 2024 party-made autopsy of what went wrong during that election.

Martin did not acknowledge the interruptions and continued with the meeting.

The Epoch Times requested comment from the DNC, AIPAC, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), and Leaders We Deserve but did not receive a response by publication.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.