The Democratic National Committee voted down a resolution that singled out the American Israel Public Affairs Committee for its spending in Democratic primaries, then punted two separate measures on Middle East policy to a working group, exposing a fault line the party's leadership would clearly prefer to paper over.

The action came Thursday at the DNC's spring meeting in New Orleans. Committee members first approved a broad, generic condemnation of dark money's influence in midterm elections, one that named no specific organization. They then rejected a second resolution that called out AIPAC by name for what it described as the "growing influence" of "dark money" corporate groups in Democratic primaries, ABC News reported.

The panel's rejection means the AIPAC-specific resolution will not advance to the full body for a final vote on Friday. Two additional resolutions, one recognizing Palestinian statehood, another urging the party to support conditioning U.S. military aid to Israel, were deferred entirely and sent to the party's newly formed Middle East working group.

The outcome amounts to a tactical retreat by the DNC's progressive wing, which has spent months pressing leadership to take a harder line against pro-Israel political spending and U.S. support for Israel's military operations. It also hands a clear win to the party's pro-Israel faction and to AIPAC itself, which wasted no time claiming vindication.

A blanket condemnation, and nothing more

DNC Chair Ken Martin framed the broader dark-money resolution as sufficient. In a post on X, Martin said:

"We had various resolutions that focused on different industries and groups, and instead of going one-by-one, we passed a blanket repudiation."

That framing drew sharp pushback from members who saw it as a dodge. Allison Minnerly, who sponsored the AIPAC-specific resolution and sits on the DNC's Middle East working group, told ABC News that the generic approach missed the point entirely.

"Members like to say that we don't want to single out AIPAC, but AIPAC will entirely single out them and all of our different progressive leaders when it comes to primary elections."

The rejected resolution had referenced the millions of dollars AIPAC spent in recent Illinois Democratic primaries. Its text warned that "the use of massive outside spending to support or oppose candidates based on their positions regarding international conflicts or foreign governments raises concerns about undue influence over democratic debate and policymaking, potentially constraining elected officials' ability to represent the views of their constituents."

That language may sound like a campaign-finance argument. But the resolution's exclusive focus on AIPAC, with no mention of any other super PAC, left or right, told a different story to its critics.

Critics call out the double standard

Andrew Lachman, a DNC member and former president of the California Jewish Democrats, said the resolution's narrow focus was "troubling." He pointed out that the political landscape is full of super PACs on both sides of the aisle.

"There are a lot of super PACs, a lot of right-wing organizations out there. There are a lot of left-wing ones out there that take advantage of the super PAC status as well. We need to address that. None of those were mentioned. I think respectfully, if it's about our campaign finance system, let's take it on. But when you mention only one group, it comes across like you're not actually interested in the campaign finance issue and transparency issue. It's about something else."

Lachman went further, attributing the push to "pressure from certain segments within the Democratic Socialists of America" and suggesting that "some people who may be future candidates, particularly for president, are just trying to pander to them." He added bluntly: "I don't think this is a mainstream view within the party, by any stretch of the imagination."

That assessment tracks with a broader pattern of prominent Democrats admitting the party has lost its way. The progressive flank keeps pressing maximalist demands, and leadership keeps finding ways to avoid a direct confrontation, without actually resolving the underlying disagreement.

AIPAC, for its part, treated the vote as a stamp of approval. Spokesperson Deryn Sousa told ABC News:

"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."

Progressives push back, hard

Rep. Ro Khanna, the California Democrat who has positioned himself as a leading progressive voice on foreign policy, did not accept the outcome quietly. He told ABC News the committee "should have voted for the AIPAC resolution given the pernicious influence they had in Illinois." In a video posted on X, Khanna declared that "anyone who wants to lead the party must condemn and reject AIPAC money."

The Washington Times reported that the spring meeting was marked by sharp internal divisions that undercut Martin's broader push for party unity. The disputes extended beyond Israel policy; a resolution originally calling for the abolition of ICE was amended to call instead for dismantling or overhauling the agency, another sign of the gap between the party's activist base and its leadership class.

In recent weeks, progressives like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Khanna have publicly stated they do not support any U.S. military aid to Israel, including defensive systems like the Iron Dome. That position remains well outside the party mainstream, but the fact that sitting members of Congress are willing to say it out loud shows how far the internal debate has moved.

The dynamic recalls recent failed Democratic efforts in the Senate on war powers, where ambitious progressive resolutions ran into the hard math of a caucus that isn't as unified as its loudest members claim.

The Middle East working group, progress or a parking lot?

The two deferred resolutions, on Palestinian statehood and conditioning military aid, were sent to the Middle East working group that Ken Martin established after the DNC's meeting last August. At that earlier gathering, Minnerly had sponsored a measure opposing the war in Gaza. It was defeated.

Minnerly told ABC News she was "not surprised that members of the resolutions committee are eager for an update" on the working group's progress, then added a pointed assessment: "Since that meeting, there has not been consistent progress or even forward motion, and the characterizations of the task force were accurate."

Ron Harris, co-chair of the DNC's resolution committee, tried to frame the deferral as something other than a dead end. "We recommend this going back to the task force, but then we can put some expectations that we hear back," he said.

Whether those expectations carry any weight remains an open question. Working groups in party politics often serve as a polite way to shelve uncomfortable topics. The progressive members pushing these resolutions clearly suspect that is what is happening here.

Brian Romick, president and CEO of the Democratic Majority for Israel, saw the outcome differently. In a statement to ABC News, he said:

"We're pleased that the DNC Resolutions Committee rejected a set of divisive, anti-Israel resolutions. These measures would be a gift to Republicans, would further fracture our party, and do nothing to bring Israelis and Palestinians closer to peace."

Fox News noted that some Democrats themselves blame the party's stance on Israel for their 2024 election setbacks, when they lost control of the White House and Senate and fell short of winning back the House majority. That context makes the DNC's reluctance to pick a clear side on Israel all the more telling, party leaders know the issue costs them votes, but they cannot agree on which direction the cost runs.

A party that can't decide what it believes

Newsmax reported that the DNC's rejection of the AIPAC resolution and its refusal to advance the Israel-critical measures represent a setback for the progressive flank, with party leadership resisting efforts to single out pro-Israel groups. Martin's preferred framing, a blanket condemnation that offends nobody in particular, is the kind of maneuver that satisfies nobody in practice.

Minnerly, for her part, insisted the party is moving her way, even if the votes don't yet reflect it. "The further escalation has gone, the longer the war has been, we have seen the Democratic Party really migrate towards this ideal of de-escalation and not funding conflict," she told ABC News ahead of Thursday's meeting.

The Just The News account of the meeting underscored that the resolutions were not expected to pass in the first place, a sign that party leaders had the votes locked down well before the gavel came down. The outcome was less a surprise than a managed conclusion.

The DNC's internal fractures on Israel mirror a broader pattern of a party struggling to reconcile its activist base with its donor class and its remaining moderate voters. Similar tensions have played out in contested Democratic primaries across the country, where establishment-backed candidates and progressive challengers fight over the direction of a party that keeps deferring its hardest choices.

What happened in New Orleans wasn't a resolution of anything. It was another delay, dressed up as a vote.

A party that cannot state plainly what it believes about one of the defining foreign-policy questions of the moment is not a party preparing to lead. It is a party buying time and hoping the question goes away.