Published by

Behind the DSA's Stance on Israel and Palestine

The Democratic Socialists of America have more than doubled their membership in the last six months.

There's no shortage of discussion when it comes to the left's fissures on Israel. Jeremy Cohan, co-chair of NYC-DSA's steering committee, explains the Democratic Socialists of America's pro-Palestine stance and their involvement in a widely criticized Manhattan protest the day after the October 7th attacks. Plus: JC shares an inside look at how the organization decides upon their policy stances, how they work with endorsed elected officials, and their broader vision for our political future.

[MUSIC]

Brian Lehrer: It's The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good morning, everyone. We'll continue on this show as best we can to discuss the Israel-Hamas war and the larger Israeli-Palestinian and Israeli-Arab conflicts with multiple points of view. As I've said before, we are trying our best to do this in good faith. I'm sure we fall short, but we do try. Keep commenting and critiquing listeners as you see fit.

Today and Monday, we will get two different views of the Israel-Palestine issue from two different corners of the American left, which have been in conflict with each other to some degree over these issues. On Monday, we will have the New York Democratic Party political consultant and writer for The Nation magazine, Alexis Grenell, who wrote in The Nation, among other things that, "Where the rubber of anti-Zionism meets the road of anti-Semitism is the belief that Israel or a Jewish state should not exist." Alexis Grenell coming up on Monday.

Right now, we'll get the views of Jeremy Cohan, co-chair of the Steering Committee of the Democratic Socialists of America, New York City chapter. An article last month in Politico was headlined, DSA is Facing an Internal Reckoning on Israel. We'll spend the first part of this segment on the DSA in the Middle East and the second part on other DSA issues in New York and in America. Same On Monday, we'll also talk with Alexis Grenell about other New York politics, as well as the Middle East then. Again, Jeremy Cohan is co-chair of the Steering Committee of the Democratic Socialists of America, New York City chapter. Jeremy, thanks for coming on. Welcome to WNYC today.

Jeremy Cohan: Thanks so much, Brian. If I can say longtime listener, first-time caller. [chuckles] Really, thanks so much for having me.

Brian Lehrer: Thank you very much. The DSA got a lot of publicity, some of it inaccurate around its involvement in the pro-Palestinian rally in Times Square on Sunday, October 8th. For background for our listeners, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, perhaps the nation's most well-known DSA member, released a statement afterwards that said, "The bigotry and callousness expressed in Times Square on Sunday were unacceptable and harmful in this devastating moment. It should not be hard to shut down hatred and anti-Semitism where we see it. That is a core tenet of solidarity," from AOC. Now, the DSA did promote that rally. Clarify for our listeners What was the DSA's role in promoting it and what was said or shown there that did or did not reflect DSA beliefs and values with this almost two months of hindsight?

Jeremy Cohan: I appreciate that, Brian. I think that day, October the 7th, a terrible day, a lot was coming out in dribs and drabs. There was a lot that people didn't know. Things happened very fast. One thing that was very clear, I think, to a number of us was that a war was coming, a terrible, terrible war, and it was important to say no to war. That's why the rally was retweeted. We were like, "Get on the streets." Now, we had no role in planning the rally. We had no role in the speakers at the rally, but it was a get-on-the-streets call.

We reflected and put out a statement a couple of days later on basically, look, as things came out and it became clear, the horrifying nature of the civilian attacks and the Israeli civilian deaths, we did not lead with our values. We are an organization that is principled on condemning the killing of civilians by Hamas and by the Israeli government. We clarified that and we apologized for not making that clear in our values.

The other thing I'll say, and so that I think is the basic context for that moment, I'll say that there is a part of me that feels like if we're still talking about that moment, people haven't really been paying attention to what NYC-DSA has been doing since, which we've activated over 10,000 people, have taken action with us in a huge and growing coalition to demand a ceasefire with principled opposition to killing of civilian lives, all civilian lives and all war crimes, and to demand the end of what's unfolding as a genocide in Gaza. I think our efforts and our message, our ceasefire and peace message, and our principled message on opposition to killing all civilians and war crimes is the message we and Democratic socialist legislators have been leading on.

Brian Lehrer: I understand. Critics will say, however, that even the basic premise that the most appropriate response to the attack on Israelis on October 7th was to promote a pro-Palestinian rally the very next day rather than centering the atrocities by Hamas, at least for the first 24 hours, that that as a first response devalues Jewish life to a shocking degree, and the impulse to run right there should therefore be seen as anti-Semitic. How would you respond to that criticism?

Jeremy Cohan: I think we did need moments to mourn. Many of us. I'm a Jew myself and my Jewish identity and tradition means a lot to me. A whole branch of my family practically was murdered in the Nazi Holocaust. The killing of Jews means quite a lot to me and that mourning is very important. I will also say, being clear about what are morally acceptable and unacceptable responses to massacres, tragedies, war crimes is really important.

In moments of tragedy, we've often seen moments of tragedy be very quickly mobilized to cruel and horrific war responses. I think of 9/11 in this country and how a terrible attack against civilians was then mobilized immediately to manufacture consent for a terrible war. I think it's important that we can be both deeply in mourning and deeply empathetic and still in mourning for our family in Israel and in Gaza.

We can retain a principled political position of, it's unacceptable to answer war crimes with war crimes. It's unacceptable to countenance genocide and ethnic cleansing. The only way to produce a situation that we don't have to see anything horrific like this occur again is to get at root causes, to get at the inequality and the injustice that underlies a situation that produces regular and horrific bloodshedding like what happens regularly in Israel and Palestine.

Brian Lehrer: I see people are starting to call in already, so let me make sure everybody knows you're invited. We can take your calls for Jeremy Cohan, a leader of the Democratic Socialists of America in New York, 212-433-WNYC. Any DSA members who have or are considering letting your memberships lapse like Congressman Jamaal Bowman did, we'll get to that over the DSA positions on Israel, or have you just joined them for the same reasons?

Maybe you've just joined the DSA because you like their positions on the conflict. DSA members, is there a reckoning going on in the organization as Politico put it? We'll get to their article or anyone else on that and also calls on the DSA and other issues in New York and the nation, which we will touch on as well as we go. 212-433-WNYC, call or text 212-433-9692. The Politico article on what they called a reckoning within the DSA came just after that rally on October 11th.

That's pretty old too at this point, but it cited the AOC criticism of the rally, mentioned that New York Congressman Jamaal Bowman has let his membership lapse over your position on funding Israel's missile defense system. It cited Los Angeles City Councilmember Nithya Rahman saying, "A national DSA statement about October 7th failed to reckon with the horrors committed by Hamas and was unacceptably devoid of empathy for communities in Israel," that from that LA-based DSA politician. Taking all those together, how would you characterize any reckoning going on within the DSA over Israel if you even agree with the premise that there is one?

Jeremy Cohan: Yes, I think what you said is about the dating of the articles is significant. I think since then, there have been, A, we've seen from our congressional leaders from Democratic socialists in Congress like Cori Bush, like Jamaal Bowman, like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, incredible moral leadership on this question. We've seen the rest of the country, a principled, anti-war position, a principled opposition to war crimes. We've seen the rest of the country. That's the position of 80% of Democrats.

That is a position that an increased number of legislators are coming to, which is that there is not a military solution to tragedy and war crimes there. We can't use that as a justification. I think Democratic socialist legislators have been in the leadership of pursuing that political position. The organization has been very strong and consistent in our messaging and in our political activity around that. Our membership has grown. Like I said, I think at least 3,000 new people have taken action with us and 10,000 total.

I'm sorry to see any member feel like they don't have a home in DSA. I'm sorry to see any person. I deeply believe in a big tent organization that welcomes all members of the working class from all walks of life, all faith extractions, Jews, Muslims, Christians, secular people, atheists, et cetera. I think it's really important for us to say and for me and my personal experience to reflect that there is a very strong home and a very long-standing home for Jews on the left, Jews with principled positions, opposing injustice, opposing apartheid.

Brian Lehrer: I want to get into some of the specifics of what you mean by that and whether you're for a two-state solution or a one-state solution and what you mean by ceasefire. What's your understanding of why Congressman Bowman let his membership lapse? If the article got the issue right, what's your judgment of him or his position on the missile defense?

Jeremy Cohan: Generally, with members, we don't discuss individual membership statuses. I actually don't particularly know Congressman Bowman's. I'll say that DSA is a raucous internally Democratic organization. We mean Democratic when we say Democratic socialists. There was a very raucous internal debate on this question and on some of Congressman Bowman's positions.

A couple of years ago, that played out. I think the official positions of the organization, it's good to look at the statements of the organization. I also think, given the age of Twitter, people from all corners have the raucous debate and then there can be a bit of a firestorm. All that happened and that happened. I think in the present, what we've seen again is Congressman Bowman being an incredibly principled fighter for Palestinian lives, for Gaza, and for a consistent position on, "We care and we demand a stop to bloodletting."

Brian Lehrer: Does the DSA stand for a two-state solution or a one-state solution?

Jeremy Cohan: Good question. DSA has no official position on this, the BDS movement that we're a part of. I think, to some degree, it's up to the people of the region how they're going to resolve this longstanding conflict and the occupation and apartheid government. Our position is that the only way to peace, the only path to peace is through justice, and that there needs to be full economic, civil, and political rights for everyone in the region.

You can't have a situation where two million Gazans are disenfranchised, are not allowed to vote on the most basic aspects of their condition and their future like what affects their ability to enter in and out of Gaza, what affects how food comes in, what affects their economy. Disenfranchisement, occupation apartheid, unacceptable. What the ultimate solution will be? Heck if I know. I don't live there.

Brian Lehrer: You're saying the DSA takes no position on whether it's a one-state solution with democratic rights for everybody, a secular state, or if preferable, is a two-state solution, an Israeli state and a Palestinian state, because I've heard that the DSA has a litmus test for politicians. Perhaps you clarify this because this is what I've heard. You verify. I'm telling you what I've heard. A litmus test that says you have to be for the one secular-state solution to be fully embraced as a DSA member. True or false?

Jeremy Cohan: False. It's not formally in our positions anywhere. I think some of our members feel very strongly about that, and that's an ongoing debate. I think most members are on the side of, unfortunately, given the horrific tragedy and the new dropping of bombs today that, unfortunately, any solution seems quite far and distant in the future, seems quite impractical.

It's up to us not to be laying down conditions for the final-- The conditions that need to be laid down are that everything must include the full rights for everyone in the region, economic, political, and civil. What that final settlement looks like is up to them. I'll say it just really last, Brian, really quick. I think that maybe the confusion sometimes comes because DSA is a supporter of the BDS movement, a non-violent attempt to pressure the Israeli state to--

Brian Lehrer: That's boycott, divest, and sanction.

Jeremy Cohan: Yes. That is very important to our members. That is very important. The general standing of legislators with Gazans and with Palestinians and for the democratic civil and political and economic rights of Palestinians is very, very important to our members. That is definitely a litmus test in our organization.

Brian Lehrer: Well, critics of a one secular-state solution will say, "That sounds nice in theory," Western style, pluralistic democracy, respecting Jews and Arabs alike, but that in practice, there is no democracy in any Arab majority country. Persecution of Jewish minorities in those countries has been awful. See Iran and Yemen, for example. There is so much bad blood between the Israelis and Palestinians at this point that Jews will be in danger if that supposedly secular democracy that might look good on paper becomes reality among real human beings. Do they have a point?

Jeremy Cohan: I think it's a fair concern. I will say talking about citizens of the US especially, talking about there being no Arab democracies feels a little bizarre to me because the US has a long and well-known history of propping up and supporting autocracies in the Middle East.

Brian Lehrer: That's fair. Critics will also say, the US as a democracy is something that the DSA would no doubt criticize heavily in terms of how minorities of many kinds are treated in this country. Imagine what it will be like in a Palestinian-majority country in Palestine, whatever you want to call it, if that comes about. Even the United States is not a good model for minorities being treated well, so maybe there's a point to having a Jewish state and a Palestinian state.

Jeremy Cohan: I think history gives us a range of examples in this regard. There's, obviously, the South African model, which many supporters of a one-state solution point to really strongly as a model of integration, of bringing people together, of reconciling. Quite horrific. If we just think about what Black South Africans had to endure on the hands of the apartheid government, the moral heroism and the commitment that Black South Africans showed to producing an integrated society is so incredible.

I think that that is possible for human beings. I think that is possible when we put the guns down, when people actually start seriously negotiating. I think that there is a great deal. Neither the Palestinian population nor the Israeli population should be confused with the behaviors of their governments. All that is true. I think there are other kinds of models like the Lebanon-type model of multi-faith, multi-sectarian governments that have specific national rights for specific groups.

I think that is a model to look at. I think, ultimately, what is most important is keeping the end goal in mind. Obviously, the PLO in the '90s had a different position and had the two-state position. I think what's important is keeping the goal in mind and insisting on any sort of pathway has to have Palestinians no longer suffering under occupation, has to have an end to apartheid, has to have a full democratic rights, has to address the root causes and the conditions of the violence in the region.

Any path forward has to do that. The US has systematically propped up and justified an Israeli government that has had no interest in doing that for a generation has not tried at all. The Haaretz editorial board recognizes the culpability of the Israeli government in producing the conditions that lead to horrors regularly. We know that's happening. Let's, as citizens of the world, say we need to get to how these horrors do not happen again.

Brian Lehrer: We'll continue in a minute, including taking your calls and texts for Jeremy Cohan, co-chair of the Steering Committee of the Democratic Socialists of America, New York City chapter. Stay with us.

[MUSIC - Marden Hill: Hijack]

Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer on WNYC. Two views from the American left of the Israeli-Palestinian situation today, as I said, with Jeremy Cohan, co-chair of the Steering Committee of the Democratic Socialists of America, New York City chapter. Chuck in Essex County, you're on WNYC. Chuck, thank you for calling in.

Chuck: Good morning, Brian. Thank you for taking my call. I've been listening to this conversation. The level of misinformation that is being stated, it confounds me. It just keeps going on and on. The first thing I'll take up is the use of the word "genocide" in this situation. It is absolutely a mischaracterization and a terrible, disgusting thing to say. I'm going to read the definition of genocide so that we could be very clear about what's going on here.

A genocide is the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group. The Nazi Holocaust was a genocide, a stated goal of killing every Jew. Darfur, Rwanda are genocides. This is not a genocide. If Israel wanted to kill every single one of the Arabs that were living there, they could. They have no intention of doing that.

They've exhibited no desire to do that. They've only said the opposite. They've marked safe zones that have a much lower rate or almost zero rate of missiles or anything unless there's a specific person they're looking for. If Israel wanted to commit a genocide, then they would just wipe out the safe zones and wipe out all the Palestinians. There's zero evidence whatsoever of that, and to say that is absolutely disgusting.

Brian Lehrer: Chuck, you've laid that out very clearly. I know you said you had multiple issues. Do you want to do a second one very briefly?

[silence]

Brian Lehrer: Or maybe not since he's not responding to that, but you heard his position on why genocide is inaccurate to apply to this situation. What's your response?

Jeremy Cohan: Thanks, Brian. Thanks, Chuck. I think I have been pretty convinced by a number of scholars of genocide who have been pretty clear in looking at the unfolding situation in Gaza, looking at the mass displacement at the number of dead, and the stated intent of ministers of the Israeli government, for instance, the far-right racist, Ben-Gvir, and calling Palestinians "animals," saying that they intend to wipe out Palestinians from the region.

Brian Lehrer: Just to be clear, and I don't know the answer to this, but did he call Palestinians "animals" or did he call the Hamas fighters "animals"?

Jeremy Cohan: I believe the statement was, "They are animals." I don't have it on me, but I believe the statement was "they" in the vast "they." It seemed quite clearly and he has a long history of saying quite racist things about Palestinians as a whole. For instance, the Israeli historian, Raz Segal, had an article in Jewish Currents called A Textbook Case of Genocide.

That piece, I found, very convincing as to when you have a situation where people are being massively displaced, where there are massive civilian casualties and civilian deaths, and where you have stated racist language and getting close to extermination as language from members of the Israeli government, the far-right Israeli government, then that's what we call a genocide.

Brian Lehrer: All right, so the two of you disagree on a definition of genocide. I don't want to continue to go down a rabbit hole on that. Listeners, you will decide for yourself, purpose of many of our segments, whether that word is applicable here or not. I will say though, Jeremy, that supporters of Israel also use that word to say what it appears to them that some Palestinian-cause supporters want when they say, "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free." That sounds like they're aiming for an erasure of Israel and that would be a genocide.

Jeremy Cohan: Certainly, if there were a position which said like, "We need to remove all Jews from the region," that would be a position of genocide. I don't think that that slogan means that. I don't think anyone certainly on the Israeli and Palestinian left, which are the groups I identify with, has that position. When they say, "From the river to the sea," they're talking about full economic, political, social rights, democratic rights for everyone in the region.

Brian Lehrer: Let's take another call. This is going to be another challenge. Marvin in Brooklyn, you're on WNYC with Jeremy Cohan, co-chair of the Steering Committee of the Democratic Socialists of America, New York City chapter. Hello, Marvin.

Marvin: Hi. Thank you for taking my call. I have just a couple of questions to your guest. Just as a preface, I've been critical of the Israeli government and occupation since 1968, including in Israel and in Jewish publications, but I've never heard the DSA or any similar groups raise any questions about the authoritarian rule of Hamas and their brutality to their own people or the PA. I haven't heard them condemning the misogyny of those two governments, their vehement anti-LGBT positions.

Similarly, I've never heard an explanation from the DSA of why there was no Palestinian state created between 1948 and 1967 as the UN resolution had passed after the mandate ended. There was no Israeli occupation. It was the Arab countries who didn't allow Palestine to be created nor have I heard the DSA say anything about elected officials not going to places like China that occupy Tibet and suppressed Uyghurs and you can go on and on in that list.

Brian Lehrer: Marvin, I'm going to leave it there. I hear all that and I'll get you a specific response. Marvin, I'll just tell you and I'll tell all the listeners that another way that we hope to address this situation with constructive conversation is that we're planning a history segment, a history series, a four-part history series for the week after next. One of the segments will be the history of a two-state solution.

We will talk about what happened in 1947, 1948, times before that, times after that as part of that. We're going to leave that there for now. That history series will be the week after next. What Marvin seems to essentially be raising for you, Jeremy, and for the DSA is that there seems to be a selective outrage, which is also why it strikes some Jews as anti-Semitic.

Very outraged at whatever atrocities Israel has committed, which is not to say they're not committing atrocities, but where is the equal outrage about China and the Uyghurs, Hamas' treatment of its own people, or its religious fundamentalism, which you would vociferously oppose in this country? Why should that not be seen as anti-Semitic for being selective outrage disproportionately aimed at Israel?

Jeremy Cohan: First of all, thank you to Marvin for that work since 1968. It is important that, for a long time, there's a long history of people being critical of the Israeli government being critical of occupation. I think, on that question, it is super important. I'm a Democratic socialist. I believe in consistent moral principles that do apply across all of the world that everyone has the right to economic, political, civil, full flourishing human lives, and that, 100%, Hamas is not a left-wing organization, is not my party. I condemn its political behavior.

That said, when you're in politics, it's also like when you're thinking politically, you have to look at who has power and what power are you trying to influence. Overwhelmingly, in the Israeli-Palestinian situation, Israel has the power. Israel is a nuclear-armed state. Israel is an incredibly powerful state whose decisions affect and shape the lives and distort and suppress the lives of Palestinians in the region. A, that's part of your political analysis. B, your political analysis is also, "What are my responsibilities as a citizen of my government?"

The US is not massively supporting the Chinese government's suppression of the Uyghurs. The US is massively supporting the Israeli government's suppression of Palestinians. There's $4 billion a year of US aid that goes to the Israeli government for military purposes, the vast majority of it for military purposes. Politically, when we map out how we're orienting to the world, yes, it's super important that we have clear and consistent principles. Also, I don't know, to me, it makes sense when our government in our name is doing terrible things.

I'll say also, for me as a Jew, when the Israeli government is doing things in my name as a Jew, that is where we have to stand up. We have to say, "Not in our name." We have to say our government should not be complicit in war crimes. There is a political reason for focusing on that even as we fundamentally are fighting for a world that is without war, without suppression of anyone's freedom of speech, with full democratic rights, the kinds of things that is our vision for the region.

Brian Lehrer: You do call and AOC and Jamaal Bowman call for a ceasefire. Many people take that to mean simply Israel should stop its war effort because of this civilian death toll that it's inflicting, but critics say you make no equivalent demands on Hamas. How would you characterize your cause for a ceasefire and what it demands of Hamas, if anything?

Jeremy Cohan: I think we've seen a little bit in that direction in the last few days. Tragically, it has been undermined and the Israeli government is starting bombing again. We've seen negotiations. We've seen basically that it's true that a ceasefire has to happen by all parties, has to be agreed on. That said, I think the indication from the last few days of diplomacy and actual efforts to get there is that the Israeli government's bombing campaign is the reason there hasn't been a ceasefire these last months.

I think that's where we are. I think it's horrific that it's starting again. It should absolutely be unacceptable. Again, in that power analysis, that political analysis, the US government is enabling the far-right MAGA contingent and, unfortunately, Joe Biden are enabling Israel to start bombing again. That is why it takes the lion's share of our criticism. That said, again, the path out of ever being in a horrifying situation like this again is real diplomacy, is putting down of arms, is coming up with a democratic, serious political solution to the issues.

That is a path that, unfortunately, the left wing of the region has been throttled. Again, I think the most powerful player in doing that has been the Israeli government. That is the path that is our only hope really as human beings is a serious Democratic socialist, I'll say, [chuckles] solution to the conflict there and to creating the real conditions of justice that produce long-lasting peace.

Brian Lehrer: Well, some would say the Israeli left has been throttled because of the violent rejectionism of some Palestinians, especially and including Hamas, that every time Israel tries to make peace in some way, this is not to excuse the settler movement or anything like that, but when the negotiations of the '90s broke down without a final status accord, the response was the violent Second Intifada, which drained a lot of the Israeli left and helped lead to Netanyahu being elected as much as he has.

After Israel left Gaza, it wouldn't have continued the siege as horrible as the siege and blockade have been for Gazans if Hamas hadn't used its power in Gaza after being elected there to continually launch rockets into Israel. Do you blame those corners of Palestinian leadership and individuals for what you call the throttling of the Israeli left as well?

Jeremy Cohan: Yes, I think that's a super interesting analysis. I think there's parts of it I do agree with. It is true. Netanyahu recognized and we have reported statements from him recognizing that it is, to some degree, to the political advantage of his party that Hamas exists and is in power because it divides the Palestinian movement. It very clearly makes for this ongoing military engagement, which has been the horrible status quo for 20 years.

The idea that the Israeli right-wing and the politics of Hamas feed into each other, I think, is something Netanyahu himself actually believes. That said, I also think, again, on our power analysis map, we have to point out who are the ones who have the real power to change this situation. Right now, in Israel, left-wing groups are being subjected to civil rights repression, are being told that they are being afraid of losing jobs, of losing positions, of not being able to speak out against the government.

I'll say that Israeli civil society is still generally much more critical of the Israeli government than much of US political and civil society establishment like Haaretz. The Haaretz editorial board is so much more openly critical of Netanyahu than you can find almost anywhere in US public sphere. That said, many leftists in Israel are afraid of their own government and are afraid of what their own government has been doing to hurt their movement and to push them out of the politics and civil society.

Brian Lehrer: Well, my question to you was about Palestinian excess and you're answering in terms of Israeli excess. Why not, if you're a pro-all-around peace group as you purport to be, also demand that Hamas demilitarize? Why not try to foster a joint Israel-Palestine peace movement and joint demonstrations in the streets of New York and elsewhere for a two-state solution or somehow justice and safety for everyone that says something like, I don't know, "From the river to the sea, Israel and Palestine will be free. Free of occupation and free of fear from attacks by either side," something like that?

Jeremy Cohan: I totally believe in the deep and fundamental importance of the Israeli and Palestinian left working together. I think it is true that it is hugely important to support and nurture shoots of both of those organizations. The reasons that the possibility for those organizations have largely been throttled though is I do think the behavior of the Israeli government, I think, "Yes, 100% Hamas should not be killing civilians. Hamas should not be committing war crimes. That is against every solidaristic political value that we have."

The Israeli government sets up a condition, for instance, a blockade making Gaza into an open-air prison, that gives political legitimacy to Hamas. It gives a reason to Palestinians to think, "This is our only hope," or maybe just there is no hope. All I can do is step outside of politics and wait till the bombs come two years from now. I think the good-faith efforts to produce peace have to come always from the people with the most power first.

Again, I see my government not supporting Hamas' war crimes. I see my government supporting Israel's war crimes and my government writing a blank check to Israel's suffocation of Gaza for the last 20 years. If I were a Palestinian, I would definitely not believe that there were any good-faith actors in the Israeli government. I would probably just be in despair, which I think is the situation of many Palestinians, deep sense of injustice and a deep sense of despair. [crosstalk] Israeli leftist too.

Brian Lehrer: One last question on this and then I actually want to spend our last five minutes on DSA issues not having to do with the Middle East. I mentioned that we'll have a different view from the American left on Monday with Alexis Grenell from The Nation magazine, who wrote that, "Where the rubber of anti-Zionism meets the road of anti-Semitism is the belief that Israel or a Jewish state should not exist." Is the DSA anti-Zionist? Would you use that word?

Jeremy Cohan: Yes, I think so. Anti-imperialist is like the broad framing. Say no to taking other people's lands, ruling over other people, anti-colonialists, and seeing that from very early on, Herzl and others and the Zionist Project, A, were okay with doing that to Palestinians. That was part of their stated intent and in alliance with Britain and other imperial powers and, B, had a hypothesis that Zionism was the solution to anti-Semitism.

Brian Lehrer: Right, but in the context of today-- I'm interrupting for time. In the context of today, if you call yourself an anti-Zionist, when the state of Israel exists, then are you not calling for there to be no Jewish state of Israel because you hedged on that before, or you said that's one possible solution?

Jeremy Cohan: Yes, I'm an anti-nationalist generally. I don't have particular love for any sort of nation-states or nationalism. That doesn't necessarily mean I'm like, "The United States shouldn't exist," though I think nationalism is a dead-end as a solution for our long-term political issues. I think saying you're an anti-Zionist is about say no to special rights or Israelis say no to occupation, say no to apartheid. I think the actual particular political configurations that you end up with is beside the point a little bit to saying nationalism is not a solution to the ills of our world. We actually need justice. B, any situation that disenfranchises and oppresses and kills Palestinians is totally morally unacceptable.

Brian Lehrer: One more call who's going to turn the page a little bit for our last few minutes, I think, I hope. Jake in the West Village, you're on WNYC with Jeremy Cohan, co-chair of the Steering Committee of the Democratic Socialists of America, New York City. Hello, Jake.

Jake: Hey, Brian. I'm a many, many, many years listener, first-time caller. I never felt so motivated to call. I want to highlight two comments. The first response wasn't an apology to the events of October 8th, which is the protest. We felt this was a get-out-on-the-streets moment for Palestine. Then when you asked, "What is your position when [unintelligible 00:42:09] said differently what's your solution?" the response is, "We have no official position."

I think that kind of prioritization of ideology of outrage over effectiveness is a perfect symbol for the far left. I'm a registered Democrat. I would almost say I thought I was far left, but this approach has just been so incredibly ineffective at advancing the progressive agenda. What I think the far left and that sort of hypocrisy or that approach is most effective at is, at best, getting Nikki Haley elected and, at worst, getting Donald Trump elected.

Brian Lehrer: Aha, I thought you were going to turn the page to Trump in some way. Jake, I appreciate your call. I have to leave it there because we're overtime already. You can respond to his linking of the DSA and others from what he calls the far-left positions that you've been articulating to losses for Democrats. Also say, in general, how does the DSA view President Biden at this point? Could you see yourself endorsing, say, Cornel West as a third-party candidate to his left?

Jeremy Cohan: I see my perspective is a little different from all I've seen of the noble work of this growing ceasefire coalition of activists from Jewish Voices for Peace, from IfNotNow, from Adalah Justice Project, from Desis Rising Up & Moving, from organizations and individuals coming together and demanding a ceasefire. I also see that the polls consistently show that Americans deeply believe in a ceasefire. 66% of all Americans, over 50%, I believe, of Republicans, and 80% of Democrats. I do have a different analysis.

If anything, my worry is a little bit the opposite way, which is I look at those New York Times poll numbers that came out in swing states. I'm terrified of what if a Trump presidency could occur again. I don't have the ear of Joe Biden to be able to share my position with him or my analysis, but it does seem to me that there are a lot of people who are horrified with what they feel is chaos abroad and what they feel is also unjust actions by US allies and just endless bloodletting and just open permission--

Brian Lehrer: Forgive me. I'm rushing toward the end there because we're already squeezing our next guest. You're arguing that your positions are actually the most winning positions for the Democratic Party to adopt. Obviously, that debate will continue within the party as the next months go on. Did the DSA endorse Biden? Obviously, you endorsed Bernie Sanders in the primaries, but did you endorse explicitly Biden over Trump and will you consider endorsing a third-party candidate like Cornel West next year even if it risks throwing the election to Trump?

Jeremy Cohan: No, we didn't endorse Biden, but we didn't endorse anyone else. I think we're Democratic organizations. Members can bring any proposals for endorsement that they want. My own general view from a sense of our membership is we're not interested in running third-party races and we are very worried about a Trump presidency.

Our commitment is to fighting on issues that matter to working-class Americans and the things that Americans believe in. They believe in abortion rights. They believe in voting rights. They believe in peace. They believe in health care. We, in this presidential cycle, are going to be fighting for those things. I hope that Joe Biden is also fighting for those things too, but that's where we're going to be.

Brian Lehrer: Jeremy Cohan, co-chair of the Steering Committee of the Democratic Socialists of America, New York City chapter. Thank you so much for coming on with us. We really appreciate it. We look forward to having you back in the presidential election campaign as we have many voices from many points of view during that period. Thank you for coming on today.

Jeremy Cohan: Thank you, Brian. It's been an honor.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.