Crews prepare the stage at the annual AIPAC Policy Conference in Washington, DC, March 6, 2018. Photo: Reuters / Brian Snyder

A newly introduced resolution within the Democratic National Committee (DNC) is putting the party’s relationship with pro-Israel lobbying money under renewed scrutiny, exposing a deepening divide between its progressive base and establishment leadership.

The measure, which is nonbinding, calls on Democrats across the US to reject or distance themselves from funding tied to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the premier pro-Israel lobbying group, and its affiliated political entities. While largely symbolic, the resolution would compel party officials and candidates to publicly take a position on whether to accept such financial support.

Allison Minnerly, a DNC member from Florida who sponsored the resolution, argues that the committee needs to take a more aggressive stance in fighting on behalf of Palestinians. 

“At a time when Democratic voters might really not have felt represented or seen when it came to Gaza or seeing their party support Palestinian rights or stand against military conflict, this could be one step toward bringing those voters back into the party,” she told The Intercept.

Minnerly also presented a resolution last August which called for an arms embargo against Israel. That measure failed. 

The new resolution comes as AIPAC and allied super PACs have become increasingly influential in Democratic primaries, spending millions to back candidates aligned with their positions. Critics within the party argue that this influx of money, including donations from Republican-aligned contributors, risks distorting Democratic contests and elevating outside influence.

The resolution condemns AIPAC for its purported attempts to influence Democratic politics surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and undermining efforts to fortify “Palestinian rights” in Israel. The resolution accuses AIPAC of pouring over $100 million into Democratic competitions in an attempt to shift overall results. 

The resolution raises general concerns about the role of nonprofit and political groups that can obscure the origins of campaign funding, intensifying calls for greater transparency. 

Progressive Democrats and grassroots activists are driving the push for the resolution, framing it as part of a broader effort to limit the influence of big money in politics. Many argue that AIPAC’s policy positions, particularly in the context of the Gaza conflict, are increasingly out of step with Democratic voters. The resolution specifically accuses AIPAC of influencing Democratic candidates to adopt positions on the Israel-Hamas conflict that are not adequately reflective of “the views of their constituents.”

Supporters say the resolution is less about enforcement and more about signaling, drawing a clear line on the type of financial backing the party should accept.

Party leaders and more moderate Democrats have approached discourse regarding the Israel-Hamas war cautiously. Centrist Democrats and those in heavily Jewish districts have balanced their support for Israel’s right to self-defense with concern over the humanitarian toll in Gaza. In progressive districts, however, anti-Israel positions have emerged as a litmus test in primaries, with candidates being grilled on whether they will vote to cease arms transfers to the Jewish state or whether they consider the military conflict in Gaza a “genocide.” 

Despite the pressure campaign to dislodge the Democratic party from Israel, many moderate liberals point to AIPAC’s long-standing support for Democratic candidates and warn that rejecting its backing could put candidates at a disadvantage in competitive races. Others emphasize the importance of maintaining relationships with pro-Israel constituencies, suggesting that a sweeping break could carry political risks. However, others have accused AIPAC of bankrolling Republican and pro-Trump candidates to the expense of Democrats. 

AIPAC contends that it supports pro-Israel candidates regardless of political affiliation, arguing the American-Israeli relationship is bipartisan and advances US interests. Further, other lobbying groups which support foreign countries, such as the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), donate funds and support to American candidates with little controversy. 

The fight over the resolution reflects a larger transformation within the Democratic Party, as shifting voter attitudes and growing skepticism of large-scale political spending reshape internal dynamics. Polling suggests that the Democratic party has largely shifted against Israel, especially among younger voters. Ambitious Democratic hopefuls are reassessing their messaging and position on Israel, with progressive liberals aggressively condemning the country for committing a so-called “genocide” in Gaza. 

As the DNC considers the measure, the outcome could serve as a signal of where the party stands in an evolving political landscape.