DSA Co-Chair Makes Statement On Israel

If the Democratic Socialists of America continue gaining influence in Congress, their foreign policy views will inevitably matter beyond internal party debates. That includes one of the most difficult and consequential questions in international politics: what a lasting settlement between Israel and the Palestinians should actually look like.

For more than three decades, the basic framework behind most diplomatic efforts has been the two-state solution.

Since the Oslo Accords of 1993, negotiations have generally revolved around the creation of an internationally recognized Palestinian state alongside Israel, with the West Bank and Gaza forming the core of that state. The exact borders, the status of Jerusalem, security arrangements and diplomatic relations have always been contentious, but the underlying idea has remained fairly consistent: two national communities, two states.

That is why comments from Democratic Socialists of America co-chair Megan Romer deserve more attention than they have received.

For years, chants of “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” have generated controversy because critics interpret the slogan as calling for the elimination of Israel as a Jewish state. Supporters frequently argue that the phrase should not be taken literally or that it simply expresses support for Palestinian liberation.

Romer’s comments make that ambiguity harder to maintain, at least when discussing the DSA’s position.

During an interview with The New Yorker’s David Remnick, she was asked directly whether the organization supported a two-state solution or a binational, one-state arrangement.

Her answer was straightforward.

“Yeah, so our position is a free Palestine with the capital in Jerusalem,” Romer said.

She then added that this “could be safely read as a one-state solution.”

That is an extraordinary position for the leader of a political organization seeking greater influence within the Democratic Party.

A one-state solution raises immediate questions about what would happen to Israel, its Jewish population and the country’s existing political institutions. Those questions cannot simply be waved away with slogans. If the proposed state were intended to replace Israel rather than coexist with it, its advocates would have to explain how millions of Israeli Jews would be protected politically, legally and physically.