It’s time to get serious about Israel

According to this latest NBC News poll, 67% of Democrats say that their sympathies lie with Palestinians over Israelis. This is an astonishing sea change in the opinion of a major part of the electorate. Just thirteen years ago, in 2013, only 18% of Democrats said that their sympathies lay with the Palestinians.

This shift, moreover, is not confined to Democrats. Thirty-seven percent of independents claim that their sympathies lie with the Palestinians; only twenty-seven percent claim that their sympathies lie with the Israelis. In 2013, those numbers were nearly reversed: 37% of independent voters claimed that their sympathies lay with the Israelis, while only ten percent of independent voters claimed that their sympathies lay with the Palestinians.

As NBC goes on to report, this stark turn in the Democratic electorate is now driving a series of Democratic primary contests in congressional races across the country. There’s little doubt that it will also shape the 2028 presidential primary.

Like the push toward democratic socialism, the organizing work on the question of Palestine has had a genuine impact on party politics. It has not yet shaped government policy, but that’s obviously the end game. An end game that no one takes more seriously than the organizations and individuals who are dedicated to defending the State of Israel, no matter what.

Which brings me to the question of action.

For the last twenty years or so, we have been engaging in a bit of a dance around the question of Palestine. Palestinian Americans, Muslim Americans, Arab Americans, Jewish Americans, students, faculty, and progressives of all persuasions, have pushed for BDS at the level of universities and local institutions, issued one resolution after another denouncing the actions of the Israeli state, launched debates over Zionism and anti-Zionism, and conducted an ongoing cultural war over terms like genocide, apartheid, and more.

These campaigns have played a central role in shaping public opinion.

But given the shifts in Democratic Party opinion, and the fact that most of the leadership of the party remains well to the right of the views of their voters, it’s time to translate those views into action.

I have a simple proposal to do so. We should unite around and back a presidential candidate who, among other things, commits to cut off all non-military and military aid, including all weapons shipments and all weapons sales, to the State of Israel.

I’m aware of the thousand and one questions and objections, the ten thousand and two nuances and qualifications, that the pundit and political class will raise to this demand. While we will have plenty of time to answer and address all of those questions and objections, nuances and qualifications, my proposal is aimed right now at the people who would be making this demand, which is not the political class, but the voters and organizers, the movement builders and activists, the real leaders of the everyday life of the left. And to them I say, think back to the past, particularly the Vietnam War and the battles around Central America in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

The demand were simple and straightforward—and, most important, correct and just, both politically and morally. The demand of the antiwar movement, by the mid-1960s, was “out now.” Not negotiations, not de-escalation, but…out…now. And that is ultimately what the United States did. It got out, at the cost of hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese lives, and thousands of American lives. Had the government and the press and the party elites heeded the demands of the antiwar movement sooner, those lives could have been saved.

In Central America, our demands were also simple: no support for dictators, death squads, or homicidal regimes. The State of Israel fits all three. There are death squads running rampant in the West Bank. The regime imposes a dictatorship upon most Palestinians who live between the River and the Sea. And it is homicidal.

The time for arguing about words like apartheid or genocide, about Zionism and anti-Zionism, is over. The time for settling for simply defending the speech rights of campus activists is over. It’s time to go on the offensive, to say to the US government, out now, stop supplying aid to this homicidal regime of death squads and dictators.

The people we need to say that to, first, are the people who would claim our vote to lead the Democratic Party in the next presidential contest. Every progressive organization needs to make this a top priority, not the exclusive priority, but a top priority, part of the package of demands we expect anyone claiming to represent the progressive wing of the Democratic Party—which now consists, at least on this issue, of roughly 2/3 of the party—to support, in the next presidential election.

If you’re part of any these groups, start raising this demand now. Get leaders to sign on to it, and commit to organizing around it, to convening some sort of progressive summit in the next six months, where it can be established as the bedrock of the progressive movement’s demands for 2028.


Discover more from Corey Robin

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

9 Comments

  1. Amanda | #

    Hear, hear

  2. Dene Karaus | #

    Correct

  3. Rosemary Laurens | #

    Writing from a small town in Victoria, Australia. I know it’s easy enough for me to agree with Corey’s call to action: I live half a world away, am not American and won’t suffer any personal consequences for voicing an opinion (not at the moment anyway). However, as I read Jacobin, the New Left Review and Crikey (independent Aussie online journalism) and participate in courses run by The People’s Forum, I have some understanding of how many in the US are fighting against the abominations of the current federal administration. I have deep admiration for their courage, and Corey’s. The far-right is gaining traction in Australia too, to the point where a party with little parliamentary experience (One Nation) seems poised to replace a long-standing major party (Liberal). Their policies, if you can call them that, comprise a litany of grievances: anti-immigration, anti-renewables, anti- women’s rights, anti-Indigenous rights, anti-environmental protection. The fight against resurgent fascism is on world-wide, and my message to the Australian government is the same as Corey’s: ‘Out of Iran! Now!’

  4. VL | #

    Agreed – and thank you for making it easy to share the central idea with our representatives.

    I do fear, however, that directing our energies toward the next election may not be sufficient in the face of the new merchant-government partnerships. Amazon, Google, and Microsoft have been thoroughly imbricated with the Israeli government/military, for example — Israel provided the testing grounds for the companies to test their LLMs and whatnot, and the companies greatly expanded the surveillance and military capabilities of the state. (See, for example, https://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2025/january/militarised-ai). Previously, Laleh Khalil had written in the LRB about McKinsey & Co. destroying various segments of South Africa’s government (“In Clover”, LRB Dec 2022 I think). And of course here we had Musk and DOGE, from which it will take us years to recover. Given that the worst ambitions of the worst politicians have been given flight by extraordinarily powerful private interests, do you think there are things we can do to clip their wings? (I fantasize about collective actions like huge boycotts of Amazon and these other companies, but so many people are dependent on their products/services ….then again, if millions could cooperate to accomplish such a boycott, perhaps we could hobble these corporations, which seem to be basically untouchable these days by traditional legal means.)

  5. TheRick | #

    Yes!

  6. marcel proust | #

    Agreed with the specific point of the post but I am going to take issue with

    “The time for arguing about words … is over.”

    I’m going to argue about a different word in this essay than any of those in the list, the use of the word “at” when “after” is correct, in the sentence

    “It got out, at the cost of hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese lives, and thousands of American lives. ”

    Although clarified in the following sentence, this sentence suggests that the objections of the pro-(Vietnam) war contingent, back in the day, were born out.

  7. R.Bee | #

    “Out Now” seems like a straightforward, consistent message that matches every other mainstream anti-war movement and would be a reasonable ask for Democratic candidates and voters.

    I do not care an iota about the Israeli government, the Trump “government”, or their related tech billionaire parasites who want to turn Palestine into a resort/prison camp and will scream “anti-Semitism” while enabling the worst people who seem to be the most hateful and dangerous to American Jews.

  8. Eric Norman | #

    This is not a serious proposal. Let’s say a grassroots campaign within the unions and other groups manages to win commitments to endorse a primary candidate opposed to funding for Israel. All of the donors who really run the party will unite behind a candidate who defends US and Israeli imperialism and will ensure the anti-Israeli candidate is defeated. The leadership will then say, well, we tried but now we have to unite behind the Democratic candidate because the Republican is worse.

    If you are going to fight a principled battle against imperialism and genocide, the necessary demand is to drop the Democrats, the billionaires they serve, and the entire coterie of professional sycophants who staff the capitalist parties, and build a party of, by, and for the working class.

  9. lfc2014 | #

    IMO, no candidate advocating a cutoff of _all_ aid to Israel will be able to win the Democratic nomination, notwithstanding the eroding support for the Israeli govt among Dem and independent voters. A proposal to substantially reduce aid to Israel (most of which is military or military-related, and runs to about $2 billion a year or so, I think, or more) would be more likely to gain traction than a complete cutoff, and even that will be a political stretch. Also, one demand should be for the U.S. to exercise leverage on a post-Netanyahu Israeli govt; a cutoff of all aid would eliminate the main source of leverage with which to influence Israeli govt policy. Originally this comment was (much) longer, but I’ve decided to opt for brevity and leave it at that.

Leave a Reply