As outlined in our Programa de Lucha, 21CS Caucus has focused primarily on foreign policy within DSA. We know that we can only achieve our anti-imperialist aims by stopping foreign aggression at the federal level. However, even though the recent elections present a tremendous opportunity, we will only succeed if DSA — as an organization — follows a bold strategy (leaving opportunism completely behind) and sees clearly the international dynamics that actually exist today (rather than skating by on vibes and vague anti-war sentiments). Turning towards chauvinism as part of an electoral strategy is not an option, but is rather a tremendous betrayal that must be avoided at all costs. We have already discussed some of these issues in our analysis of the foreign policy of Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, and now we will broaden our focus.

This three-part guide seeks to take an honest and critical look at where our current DSA-backed candidates stand on foreign policy, and how we — as an organization — can work together to make meaningful changes in 2027 and beyond. We will at times discuss the possibility of a DSA-backed candidate running for president in accordance with R33, and how DSA can interact with such a campaign, but will primarily focus on the broader question of how DSA can meet this moment to advance socialism both at home and abroad, and how we can effectively leverage our current position to advance anti-imperialism. We will explore in more detail the issues of NATO, U.S. military bases overseas, and the current Cold War posture towards China and Latin America, among other topics, and will provide specific and practical guidance along the way.

In writing this, we stress that DSA members should adopt neither a passive critical approach (e.g., sitting on the sidelines and sniping at each other) nor a passive political approach (e.g., seeking to give power to individuals without actively participating in the process to determine how that power will be used). The proper approach, building on a long history of socialism, requires both correct analysis (theory) and concrete action (praxis). There is tremendous opportunity here, and we are proud of the organization’s work in constantly contesting for power, but the most difficult work lies in our active participation ahead.

PART I: Palestine

On August 5, 2017, DSA formally broke with the old Michael Harrington policy of support for Israel, embraced anti-imperialism, and passed a convention resolution for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS). At the time, DSA co-founder Jo-Ann Mort argued that this position would be “alienating” (much like those today who still argue that DSA’s positions are “marginalizing”); there was (and is) a temptation to accommodate the ruling ideas of the time in pursuit of so-called “mass politics.” There was (and is) a reluctance to take leadership. However, being clear-headed and bold was absolutely the right choice. Even if taking such a position would provide “fuel to all of those trying to discredit” us through bad faith attacks, it was something we always needed to fight for, and simply following the Democrats out of craven electoral ambition would have been a pathetic move rather than a “pragmatic” one. Living inside the imperial core, this is one of the most important issues where we can make a real and material difference if we continue to push further, beyond the traditional comfort zones of politicians. Despite all of our progress on the question of Palestine over the past decade, however, this is still an issue that the organization struggles with, and how we move forward (embracing the bold path and leaving behind those who mask their cowardice and bad analysis behind arguments of “pragmatism”) is crucial.

We have been largely happy with how our DSA candidates for Congress have addressed the issue of Palestine this year. In general, they have clearly identified Israel’s actions as a genocide (something that Sen. Sanders and Rep. Ocasio-Cortez were needlessly slow to do), and have made comments signaling that they want to restrict arms sales and other aid to Israel (in line with the tactic that ultimately defeated apartheid South Africa).¹ This is important because the tactic of choking off Israel’s arms supply is absolutely critical if we want to make a material difference. We can’t fall victim to rhetorical sleights of hand, and we have to ruthlessly criticize any loopholes that the Democrats try to leave open. We have been particularly heartened by the campaign of Darializa Avila Chevalier, a former Columbia University student protester during the Gaza encampments, and are hopeful that new members of Congress can advance the issue forward. In general, it appears that these new DSA-backed nominees are following in the footsteps of our more courageous DSA-backed Rep. Tlaib, who immediately released a statement on November 2, 2023 condemning the U.S. for funding this ongoing genocide, rather than the well-travelled path of opportunism.² Nevertheless, as we learned from the negative examples of Rep. Ocasio-Cortez and Rep. Bowman, details matter and you need to read the fine print of a politician’s campaign statements, and probe into the areas where they have been either silent or vague.

DSA as an organization has taken a firm position against any and all arms transfers to Israel, even if they are misleadingly classified as “defensive” and even if Israel pays for them. That’s what an arms embargo is. This was stated very clearly in a July 2025 DSA statement “opposing any and all funding to Israel as it continues its genocide, including a full arms embargo.” This means “keeping all arms out of the hands of a genocidal military, no exceptions.” This language is important, and we always need to be on guard for weasel-words and exceptions that seek to divert our advocacy into a more "compatible" position. Rep. Tlaib has been our best Congressional representative on this issue so far, driving the conversation forward with the confidence and courage that we all need, even in the face of attacks from Democratic party (and Republican) leadership. However, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez and Rep. Bowman have each expressed weakness on this issue in a way that has been harmful and disorganizing. Accordingly, DSA as an organization publicly rebuked both Rep. Ocasio-Cortez and Rep. Bowman for their iron dome votes on September 24, 2021, and publicly rebuked Rep. Ocasio-Cortez again July 19, 2025 for a separate iron dome vote.

We were disappointed to see how NYC-DSA’s Congressional endorsement forum for Rep. Ocasio-Cortez unfolded in early 2026. In our opinion, the Congresswoman was misleading in her responses, and many of our comrades were overeager to claim that Rep. Ocasio-Cortez had “moved to the left” on the issue of Israel, even as Rep. Ocasio-Cortez herself publicly insisted that her position had not changed. Much of the confusion came from an exchange where Rep. Ocasio-Cortez was asked point-blank: Do you support an arms embargo on Israel? The confusing response, which was quickly and selectively reported by a local journalist, stumbled through an affirmative response, and immediately added in the same breath that “the Israeli government should be able to finance its own weapons, if they seek to arm themselves.”

That’s not an arms embargo. Many DSA members had gleefully focused on the first part of Rep. Ocasio-Cortez’s response, affirming support of what she either misleadingly or ignorantly described as an “arms embargo,” completely missing the self-contradiction present in the full statement. An arms embargo means that all weapons shipments — no matter who pays for them — are stopped. If Israel is buying “its own weapons” from the United States, then there is not an arms embargo in place. Choosing her words very carefully, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez offered a more polished statement to the New York Times on April 1, 2026 (April Fool’s Day, appropriately), affirmatively celebrating the iron dome system and stating her position as follows: 

I believe the Israeli government is well able to fund the Iron Dome system, which has proven critical to keep innocent civilians safe from rocket attacks and bombardment. Consistent with my voting record to date, I will not support Congress sending more taxpayer dollars and military aid to a government that consistently ignores international law and U.S. law.

This is a mealy-mouthed statement, and a position that should worry everyone in DSA who is committed to Palestinian liberation. At the outset, notice that Rep. Ocasio-Cortez herself insists that her latest position is not a new one, but is rather “consistent with my voting record to date.” This voting record, by the way, includes two votes on iron dome that DSA as an organization has explicitly condemned.³ After insisting that her position remains unchanged, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez reframes the issue in an obnoxious way, portraying iron dome as a positive good that “has proven critical to keep innocent civilians safe from rocket attacks and bombardment.” By portraying Palestinians as aggressors “bombarding” innocent Israeli civilians, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez is engaging — yet again – in the same type of pedantic propaganda we have come to expect. It’s bad. Praising iron dome is just as bad as praising the bullet-proof vest worn by an active school shooter, or praising the anti-aircraft weapons of apartheid South Africa. Nobody who seeks to carry the socialist banner in Congress, let alone the White House, should be speaking like this.

After all this, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez says that she doesn’t exactly oppose Israel obtaining iron dome equipment, but rather supports it and thinks that Israel doesn’t need our help right now to acquire the weapons. More broadly, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez is articulating a position that, although she doesn’t support subsidizing so-called “defensive” weapons, she also doesn’t oppose (and, indeed, morally supports) Israel’s acquisition of those “defensive” weapons on its own. According to Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, in this particular case Israel can afford to pay for iron dome equipment in the private market and she supports that kind of acquisition. That begs the question: from whom will Israel purchase the iron dome components? Well, it will be getting the equipment from the United States company Rafael USA, Inc. which celebrates its role in iron dome on its website: 

RAFAEL has partnered with Raytheon through a U.S. based Joint Venture – Raytheon Rafael Area Protection Systems (R2S) – to produce the IRON DOME in America. Currently at 70%, it is expected that in the near future, 100% will be Made in the U.S.A. 

In November 2025, Raytheon announced that its “joint venture Raytheon-Rafael Protection Systems has secured a $1.25 billion contract to supply Israel with surface-to-air missiles,” including iron dome missiles. So when Rep. Ocasio-Cortez says that Israel can afford its own iron dome purchases, what she is saying is that they can purchase the components from a U.S. based joint venture. 

This is not a courageous position. Rather, this is essentially the same position as that of “vocal Zionist” Rahm Emanuel (whose father was literally a member of the Irgun paramilitary group). In March 2026, Emanuel spoke with Vox and made a distinction between directly gifting Israel with money/equipment, and affirmatively restricting the use of its weapons:

My view, we're not giving you the aid. You want to buy defense equipment? You're like anybody else out there, you're going to have to pay for yourself. The idea that we're going to continue to subsidize your defense budget, not happening anymore. 

Likewise, Rep. Hakeem Jeffries made a similar statement in a July 14, 2026 letter to his colleagues:

Israel has an advanced economy and is capable of paying for its own sophisticated weapons, as the Prime Minister recently acknowledged. Accordingly, any future security arrangement between our two countries should be structured consistently with defense agreements that exist with our other Western allies and strictly adhere to our human rights laws and values.

This is exactly Rep. Ocasio-Cortez’s position. It’s not brave; it’s literally the same as what radical zionists like Hakeem Jeffries say. This is not, and never was, cause for celebration.

There is obviously more history and background, which we haven’t covered yet. For instance, the BDS Movement has spoken at length about what it views as a comprehensive embargo, and has provided specific guidance on strategic pressure points. Likewise, there have been various bills (e.g., the Block the Bombs Act), laws (e.g., the Leahy Laws), and non-binding resolutions (e.g., Rep. Tlaib’s H.Res. 876) that are relevant. We’ll address these, and their major limitations, as we go. Nevertheless, what Rep. Ocasio-Cortez has articulated very deliberately to DSA and to the New York Times is a vision — one we strongly disagree with — where she affirmatively supports Israel’s right to “defend” itself (albeit in a more restrained way), and has committed that she will not stand in the way of Israel independently acquiring the tools it supposedly needs to “defend” itself (with some exceptions). We have been paying very close attention, and the distinction between “offensive” and “defensive” weapons has not been erased, but is rather central to Rep. Ocasio-Cortez’s position. We view this as a very dangerous position, one that will immediately (and accurately) be viewed as weak, and one that will leave the status quo largely intact. With this approach, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez will still take on all the fury of the Israel lobby, but without advancing the issue beyond where it stands right now. We don’t view this as the leadership that’s needed right now, and DSA as an organization needs to think through very carefully how we can push forward, rather than simply falling in line with the position that Rep. Ocasio-Cortez finds most comfortable. The Democrats have been discredited precisely because of their two-faced weakness on this issue, and DSA has made advances precisely because there is strong appetite to go much further. 

Importantly, our new DSA candidates to Congress are their own people. They are not Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, and we don’t mean to suggest that any of them will act like Rep. Ocasio-Cortez. We are proud that Rep. Tlaib has stood strong and has taken more courageous positions, and we are hopeful that our new members will follow in her bold footpath instead of following Rep. Ocasio-Cortez’s approach. The landscape has changed so much in recent years, and you really can’t have it both ways on this. So what do we know about the positions of these new candidates, so far? Are they more like Rep. Tlaib (good) or like Rep. Ocasio-Cortez (weak)?

Even though the topline is generally good across the board, it’s important to examine these statements carefully.⁴ For instance, Valdez’s statement is generally a good one, explicitly calling for a “full” suspension of both “military funding” and also all “arms transfers.” This appears to close the loophole that Rep. Ocasio-Cortez has leaned on, by clarifying that the policy is to end all weapons transfers, including those that Israel might try to purchase from U.S. sources. Likewise, Kiros appropriately calls for a “full” arms embargo, which necessarily means an end to weapons sales. Still, we need to be cautious of carefully-worded statements that point towards “offensive” weapons, and comments that are limited to just applying the existing Leahy laws (which are very limited, flawed, and ineffective) or passing the Block the Bombs Act (discussed in more detail below).⁵ Likewise, we need to be cautious of vague comments like those of McKinney; it’s worrying that in the same interview where he gave this quote, he also stressed that he doesn’t “really deal with foreign policy” at the state level, and that “now that I’m running for a Congressional seat, I’m learning more and more about it.” This is more or less what Rep. Ocasio-Cortez told PBS in her embarrassing Firing Line interview, giving us an early warning sign of her incoherence on the topic. The Palestine topic is an issue that requires careful analysis and strong positioning, especially if you’re contradicting the prevailing narrative by the other political parties and news outlets, and you can’t get by with mere sloganeering and vibes.

Going into 2027, it is important to remember that Rep. Ocasio-Cortez did not endorse any of the new DSA members running against incumbents (a problem that we had highlighted here), following through on her promise to Democratic party leadership in December 2024 that she would “no longer back congressional primary challenges to her colleagues.” It’s possible that Rep. Ocasio-Cortez won’t be as influential among these new members as many expect, and there is room for these new members to be bolder and more ambitious. Examining influences is important, and it’s therefore necessary to talk briefly about the other non-DSA influences that will be pushing and pulling our newest DSA members in Congress (much like Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Sen. Sanders both influenced Rep. Ocasio-Cortez). This will include so-called “progressive” legislators, particularly those with pre-existing relationships with DSA electeds. One such person is former NYC Comptroller Brad Lander, a self-described “liberal zionist” who has had a close relationship to Mayor Zohran Mamdani, and who has appeared in campaign videos with both Claire Valdez and Darializa Avila Chevalier.

Brad Lander’s run for Congress, unseating unrepentant genocide-supporter Rep. Dan Goldman, came at the expenses of DSA-backed New York City Council member Alexa Avilés. As the Daily News reported on December 11, 2025, Zohran Mamdani “irk[ed] some members” of DSA when he “threw his weight behind Brad Lander for the city's 10th Congressional District, an announcement that came after the city's DSA chapter voted weeks ago to endorse one of their own, Alexa Avilés, for that seat.” Whether this was the right strategic move or not is an open question, and of course we can understand the strategy of running fewer DSA races in order to focus resources. Nevertheless, there is a tremendous gap in quality between Avilés and Lander, and there is now a risk that Lander’s ideological positions — and close relationship with Mayor Mamdani — will weaken those of the incoming DSA members.

For context, Alexa Avilés is a wonderful and widely beloved DSA-endorsed City Council member in New York. After she had been pushed out of the Congressional race, she appeared in DSA’s January 2026 mass call on Venezuela, delivering a speech denouncing the Trump regime’s attacks on Venezuela:

By contrast, self-described “liberal zionist” Brad Lander is a major step down in quality, who will make advocacy against the Israeli occupation difficult and muddy. Our caucus wrote in August 2025 that it was important for DSA to clarify its status as an anti-zionist organization at the previous convention. In contrast, Lander still insisted to CNN on July 10, 2026 that he is a “liberal zionist,” and that “a liberal zionist is a zionist.” Notwithstanding the horror of the Nakba, and the violent racism of the Israeli movement from its earliest days, Lander whitewashes the project and insists that “the Declaration of Independence that founded Israel [i.e., a document drafted by the violent settlers during the height of the Nakba] says it would be a place for the ingathering of exiles and full civil and political rights for everyone living there.” To be perfectly clear, that’s some liberal zionist gobbledygook. It’s feel-good bullshit, selling a hot bag of garbage to gullible chumps. Lander frames the issue as one where the apartheid state of Israel just needs to live up to its own noble “values,” which it articulated (in a religiously exclusive way) at the same time when it was destroying Palestinian villages. In an obvious contradiction, Lander says that he desires to see Israel continue as a religiously exclusive society while also being a “democratic” society. In other words, Lander launders self-contradictory propaganda, in order to confuse and defang anti-zionist activism. He advocates for an incoherent fantasy, and muddies the waters. This is a major problem, and too many DSA members over the years have rushed to support Lander (who, to his credit, acknowledges the genocide and has typically called for a “ceasefire” during the most severe spikes in Israeli violence). This is precisely why DSA has focused so much of its energy — pushing against the “right wing” factions of DSA — on clarifying its position as an anti-zionist organization, and why so much of the right-wing (including individuals like Lander) have focused their attention on rehabilitating the the Israeli project as something that can be made "progressive."

Brad Lander has not just rhetorically supported the apartheid state of Israel, he has also materially supported it. During his time as New York City’s Comptroller, the Daily News reported on February 26, 2025, that then-Mayoral candidate Lander “sidestepped a politically explosive question about whether he would as mayor push to have the city's pension funds divest from Israeli government bonds in protest of the country's war in Gaza.”⁶ On December 11, 2025, the Daily News further reported that Lander as Comptroller had not only invested in Israeli weapons systems, but affirmatively increased those investments and bragged about it.

Under Comptroller Brad Lander’s management, New York City’s public pension funds have seen windfalls from investments in an Israeli arms manufacturer — a boon that could become an awkward pressure point for Lander as he mounts a 2026 primary challenge against Congressman Dan Goldman.

. . .

[T]he city’s public pension funds have under his watch as comptroller increased investment in Elbit Systems, the largest supplier of weapons to the Israel Defense Forces, records reviewed by The News show. As recently this past March, in fact, Lander touted that investment to an Orthodox Jewish radio host.

. . .

During his unsuccessful mayoral campaign, Lander told a progressive group in early 2025 the pension funds weren’t invested in “any” Israeli government bonds after being asked how he could as comptroller put pressure on Israel to end the war in Gaza. The funds at the time actually held more than $1 million in Israel bonds.

. . .

Speaking around the same time to Zev Brenner, an Orthodox Jewish radio host, Lander struck a different note as he affirmed he remains opposed to the Boycott, Divest and Sanction movement that calls for pulling money out of Israel over its government’s treatment of Palestinians. In that appearance, he specifically touted the Elbit investments.

“The New York City pension funds are proudly invested in many Israeli-owned companies, tech companies like Nice Ltd, Elbit Systems, Mobileye, Teva Pharmaceutical … and no, of course, we’re not going to divest from them,” he said.

This is dirtbag behavior. It’s also clear that, on the issue of Israel, people like Lander will be a bad influence on the newest DSA members in Congress, pushing them (much like Rep. Ocasio-Cortez) towards a more “compatible” position, one which insists on the genocidal apartheid state of Israel just being a bit more “humane,” attempting to do just enough to quiet down public outrage over the issue.⁷ Although we certainly understand the strategy of forming loose alliances with people who are not exactly on our side, that kind of strategy also poses very clear dangers. When you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares back into you.

Of course, it’s possible that Lander won’t be all that influential among these new members either. Much like Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, Brad Lander declined to endorse Claire Valdez and Darializa Avila Chevalier when it mattered the most.⁸ Nevertheless, it is clear that Lander will be exerting some type of influence, possibly setting the “left” limit on criticism of Israel, and there will be some pressure for the newest DSA members to conform to Lander’s more “compatible” type of advocacy.

In addition to fellow legislators, there is also the question of paid political consultants. The left has a very weak bench when it comes to the line of work of paid political consultancy. There isn’t a large market for Marxist political analysis. Rather, this void is filled by individuals like the sloppy Matt Duss, a foreign policy advisor for both Bernie Sanders and Rep. Ocasio-Cortez. We wrote about Duss here in the context of his stupid advocacy for NATO’s positions, and won’t repeat that here. We suspect that some of the superfine parsing of Rep. Ocasio-Cortez’s position on Israel may have come from Duss, an opponent of the “radical elements in the BDS movement” who advocates for the so-called “two state solution” (i.e., retaining Israel’s presence as a religiously-discriminatory entity), and who has maintained that it is “of course quite true that Israel has the right to defend itself” (against the same people it is actively colonizing).⁹ Although people like Duss, much like Lander, will criticize the Israeli military for its grossest and most indefensible excesses, he also aims to effectively neutralize the “left” into an incoherent position of urging the colonizing power to just be a bit nicer while it “defends” itself. DSA effectively rejected this position when it adopted its Anti-Zionist Resolution at the 2025 convention, and it should likewise work to eliminate the influence of weasels like Duss.

Another bad influence in the consultancy world is some little wiener named Morris Katz, who was one of the boneheads who misleadingly pushed right-wing pro-Israel troll John Fetterman as a “progressive” in his 2022 Pennsylvania Senate campaign.¹⁰ Morris Katz also attempted the same misleading trick with literal Abu Ghraib prison guard Graham Platner, a man who joined his war criminal buddies to get a Nazi SS “Totenkopf” tattoo in 2007 (his ex-girlfriend Lyndsey Fifield later told reporters that, many years before his Senate run, Platner would use a foreign accent and refer to it as “my Totenkopf”). Platner had quite literally been an imperialist thug, not just guarding a literal torture camp, but writing that “small wars [i.e., imperialist wars where the local power is overmatched] are pretty enjoyable,” and happily stating that he would have actively volunteered to fight in “the Indian Wars [i.e., wars of extermination against Native Americans], the Philippines [i.e., an imperialist war of conquest from 1898-1902], Haiti and Nicaragua in the 1920’s [i.e., two other colonialist attacks], Vietnam [he’s really showing his anti-communist ass here], Nicaragua and El Salvador again in the 80’s [same].” Platner literally wrote on his campaign website: “Send me to Washington and I will work tirelessly to rebuild the American military” (it was later scrubbed by deceptive campaign staffers who understood that it conflicted with their misleading “progressive” campaign). This all adds up to an absolutely monstrous confession of liberal imperialist ambition that should have completely disqualified Platner in the eyes of any socialists. That’s not even to mention his stint as a Blackwater mercenary (under the rebranded name of “Constellis”), his involvement in the war crimes of Fallujah, and his alleged rape of Jenny Racicot. He only got as much traction as he did because of slimy and misleading “political consultants” shaping his public message, which is a major warning sign as we move forward. To its credit, DSA as an organization never took the step of endorsing Platner (even though local Maine DSA leadership released an ill-advised “voter guide” that urged readers to vote for Platner). Nevertheless, much like our earlier warnings against Kat Abughazeleh, it is hard to deny that certain “left” tendencies came very close to enthusiastically embracing Platner as part of yet another gross misread of "mass politics."¹¹ 

The only reason why we dwell on Fetterman and Platner here is to drive home the point that triangulating dipshits like Morris Katz are deeply dishonest people. There is also a deeply gullible ecosystem on the left that desperately wants to move forward with anyone who meets the theatrical symbolism of seeming to be on the left. People like Katz are salespeople, who exploit the hopes and wishes of the socialist left while selling you a wet paper bag filled with catshit. 

Anyway, to top it all off, Katz — who obviously doesn’t have clear principles given his work for both John Fetterman and self-described “proud zionist” Micah Lasher — is a bad influence on the issue of Israel. We won’t dwell on the point, but Katz’s position is similar to that of Brad Lander, where the state of Israel supposedly just isn’t living up to its own noble values. According to Katz, the problem is that right-wing politicians like Netanyahu are themselves an “existential threat to Israel’s existence” insofar as their extreme policies threaten the legitimacy of the institution. Katz will often frame his position as one of defending Israel’s safety and right to exist: “You say you care so deeply about Israel's safety  and Israel's right to exist, you are putting it at risk by conflating all these different things, by pretending that there's not a massive distinction between Netanyahu and between a democratic vision of what government should look like.” This is a subtle, but deeply misleading point.

Unfortunately, Morris Katz has been an advisor to Zohran Mamdani, and was also "heavily involved” in the Claire Valdez campaign. To their great credit, a group of DSA members has been publicly urging Mamdani to distance himself from Katz. However, at a news conference on July 13, 2026, when Mamdani was asked about the pressure to disengage from nepo baby Katz, he doubled down on his collaboration instead: “I will continue to work with Morris Katz, he remains a top advisor of mine.” It was a bad answer, and it’s a bad relationship. It’s not just a matter of putting out bad statements, either; the New York Times had previously reported on November 4, 2025 that Morris Katz “saw a political advantage in locking in Ms. [Jessica] Tisch [i.e., the billionaire heiress who had previously worked in the NYPD to violently suppress the Palestine solidarity encampments with ‘counterterrorism’ forces] quickly” to lead the NYPD under Mayor Mamdani’s first term, even over the more sober resistance of Mamdani’s Chief of Staff Elle Bisgaard-Church. The theatrical posturing of Katz isn’t just a matter of bad comms, it is also a matter of bad policy.

Given this landscape, and given these dangers, what should our newest DSA members of Congress do? There are terrible dangers in various directions, including pressure on DSA members of Congress coming from more conservative allies (e.g., Brad Lander), from party “leadership” (e.g., Hakeem Jeffries), from cowardly/ambitious peers (e.g., Rep. Ocasio-Cortez), from paid consultants (e.g., Matt Duss), and from deceitful advisors (e.g., Morris Katz). There will also be, at times, a temptation for these new members of Congress to be vague, and to avoid “rocking the boat” in their new roles.¹² It’s our job, as DSA members, to encourage and support them in being bolder. It’s also our responsibility to see through the bullshit when little twerps like Morris Katz try to triangulate on these issues.

With respect to specific action for members, we have seen DSA pass R42 (Labor for an Arms Embargo) at our 2025 convention — one of the resolutions that our caucus had supported — and the best way forward is to diligently implement that resolution, with the full participation of as many DSA members, allies, and elected officials as possible. There are local versions of this unfolding, such as New York’s campaign (Break the Chain) to cut off the supply chain networks supporting Israel’s genocide. This will give us an opportunity to engage actively on the issue, and promote the best version of an actual arms embargo arm-in-arm with our newest members of Congress. 

We do need to also acknowledge the elephant in the room, which is the potential of a presidential campaign from Rep. Ocasio-Cortez. This will present some difficulties because there is already widespread acknowledgement within DSA that Rep. Ocasio-Cortez is weak on the Israel issue, and has failed to match DSA’s broader positions. The organization has rebuked her on the issue of iron dome twice, and also very briefly made its national endorsement conditional on upholding better positions on the question of Palestine. To their credit, even the Groundwork caucus openly acknowledged that there are “contradictions and incoherence of her positions on Palestine,” and has argued that Rep. Ocasio-Cortez “needs to apologize for her infamous DNC speech” (where she provided propaganda cover to the ongoing genocide) before moving forward. Other early cheerleaders, like Jacobin’s Bhaskar Sunkara, have likewise noted that Rep. Ocasio-Cortez “is more progressive than socialist” in her approach. This will be challenging, especially as some within DSA have been attempting to recruit Rep. Ocasio-Cortez to run for the presidency.

It’s too early to say if there will actually be a presidential run by Rep. Ocasio-Cortez; she may decide against it, she might run for Vice President, she might run for Chuck Schumer’s senate seat, and she might stay where she is. Regardless, certain factions within DSA are explicitly pushing for DSA to rapidly endorse Rep. Ocasio-Cortez (this is a mistake), so we’ll need to confront the question sooner rather than later. Our perspective is that, as we head into endorsement discussions, it will be very important for DSA to develop a very specific candidate questionnaire and specific minimum policy programs for all potential candidates. Any such questionnaire should be very specific and detailed, not just vague and open-ended. The presidency is a big deal, and details matter (you can’t hide behind three campaign slogans at this level). Among other things, such a questionnaire could ask: “Do you support a full arms embargo against Israel, including active measures to prevent Israel’s purchase of any weapons from any source, and will you use the full power of the presidency to restrict all arms sales to Israel?” Needless to say, support for a full arms embargo — rather than permitting Israel to purchase “its own weapons” — should be a necessary condition.¹³ To the extent that there will be upcoming discussions within local chapters, we need to be very loud about this. Everyone within DSA who is eager to see the genocide end needs to press, to make sure that a future DSA-backed presidential candidate will courageously push forward to completely eliminate the threat from Israel, rather than trying to fit in with Democrats and do the absolute bare minimum necessary to demobilize the left. DSA has become a serious challenger to the Democratic Party precisely because of its opposition to the genocide, and the Democratic Party has lost its credibility precisely because of its support of the genocide (as a tipping point after many other accumulated problems).

To put an even finer point on the issue, we can and should encourage our newest DSA members of Congress to introduce specific legislation to restrict all arms shipments — and even financing — to Israel. A comprehensive policy that treats Israel like apartheid South Africa is very appropriate and timely right now. Despite its media attention, the existing Block the Bombs Act (H.R. 3565) — described by Amnesty International as only a “partial” arms embargo and by IMEU as “not enough” — is a relatively narrow bill. It does not cut off all U.S. military aid to Israel (let alone funding), nor does it impose a blanket arms embargo. Instead, it prohibits the president from transferring a defined list of “offensive” munitions to Israel unless Congress specifically authorizes each transfer, and Israel provides certain written assurances. In fact, lead sponsor Rep. Delia Ramirez brags that the bill “does not impact Iron Dome or Israel’s ability to defend itself.” This is one of the reasons why Rep. Ocasio-Cortez has, for years, leaned heavily on the distinction between “offensive” and “defensive” weapons, and why we should not relent on this issue. The Block the Bombs Act appears to be the policy proposal that was introduced to gain the support of more conservative Democratic politicians who insist on Israel’s so-called “right to defend itself” (while simultaneously denying the ability of Palestinians to defend themselves or win their struggle against the larger colonial powers); their comfort zone, however, does not define the limits of where we need to go.¹⁴

It would be a very simple matter for one of the newest DSA members of Congress to introduce legislation — perhaps using the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986 (H.R.4868) as a starting point — to more thoroughly prohibit by statute all military and financial assistance to Israel. It could perhaps even be called the “Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 2027.” Having a specific bill is important, because it’s one thing to ask a potential candidate about arms embargoes in the abstract (where they can dodge the question with meandering answers), and it’s quite another to ask about a specific bill with specific text. The benefit of having DSA members going to Congress is that we can work with them to introduce legislation that sets out our specific political goals. And, just to be absolutely clear, the goal is not to introduce the bill just to make someone look bad when they fail to support it. Rather, the goal is to introduce a bill that sets out the necessary and appropriate policy that we need right now, and for everyone seeking the DSA endorsement to support it.¹⁵ Now is not the time to be timid or to settle for half-measures. We need bold leadership, and any would-be standard-bearer needs to be held to a high standard. If we do win at this level, we need to follow through and decisively act against the colonial entity of Israel.

In addition to developing a more thorough arms embargo, and using the full extent of U.S. power to turn the state of Israel into an international pariah akin to apartheid South Africa, there is still more to do. Under international law, we are not only obligated to do everything in our power to stop the genocide, but we are also legally obligated to prosecute anyone who has been involved in the genocide. The legally binding genocide convention requires the following:

The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.

Even if the people responsible for a genocide are public officials, their prosecution is commanded under international law: “Persons committing genocide ... shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.” Under United States law, the War Crimes Act provides criminal penalties for “grave breaches” of the Geneva Conventions and other serious violations of international humanitarian law. 18 U.S.C. §2441. The statute applies to “[w]hoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime,” and does not confer immunity to government officials. 18 U.S.C. §2441(a). War crimes are treated as individual crimes, not merely state acts, and the Nuremberg precedent has already rejected “I was a government official” as a legal defense. See Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal: Proceedings Vol. XXII (1946) (describing the prosecution of Göring and other Nazi officials). There is still, for some reason, a collective delusion that U.S. officials are effectively world dictators who are above the binding international laws against war crimes, or that some sort of legal-ism prevents prosecution, and it is very important that we conclusively break that illusion. In fact, it is one of the most important things that we can do in a moment like this. By contrast, it would be incredibly damaging if a so-called “socialist” presidential candidate were to abandon these binding legal principles. Why did we even sign this fucking genocide convention, if not for exactly this?

To be absolutely clear, DSA’s “Workers Deserve More” program explicitly states that we should “prosecute U.S. and Israeli leaders responsible for the genocide in Gaza.” When we say that, we mean it.

We realize that some people like Rep. Ocasio-Cortez might be reluctant to take this step, to the extent that it requires them to target Democrats and Republicans for prosecution. It might cause “relational harm,” or make it harder for her to fit in with the ruling class. To us, however, this is simply a matter of following through with what you have already said. If you truly believe that there has been a genocide, and that certain individuals in the U.S. are responsible, then the necessary next step is to make them face the consequences of a war crimes prosecution once that falls within your power.¹⁶ The more we continue to treat these genocidal actions as “normal,” or beyond consequence, the more the U.S. will slide into fascism.¹⁷ During President Obama’s misleading 2008 campaign for presidency, he specifically pledged that he would instruct the Attorney General to “immediately review” any cases of illegal torture, and that “nobody is above the law.” Of course, Obama lied and would later reverse course (effectively granting immunity to Bush era war criminals and therefore laying the groundwork for a further slide into unrestrained violence and dictatorial powers, out of some weird principle of “looking forward” instead of backward).¹⁸ However, socialists today often forget how compelling and necessary this argument for accountability was, because holding officials responsible for war crimes is such a clear and obvious necessity. If DSA as an organization is going to run a candidate for the presidency, which is a tremendous opportunity to drive a dagger through the heart of U.S. imperialism, then we cannot be shy about demanding what is necessary. We can’t take a step back from Barack Obama’s earlier campaign pledge, but rather need to do what he was too cowardly to do. If DSA really maintains that the U.S. is responsible for a genocide (it is), then follow-through is absolutely necessary. People don’t respect cowards. 

WE WILL CONTINUE WITH PART 2 NEXT WEEK, DISCUSSING U.S. MILITARISM AND NATO.

Footnotes

¹ Sen. Sanders initially refused, for a surprisingly long time (until September 2025), to call Israel’s actions a genocide. He would also typically personalize the issue to Benjamin Netanyahu. Likewise, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez danced around the issue for too long, only conceding in a backhanded manner in January 2024 that “the ICJ ruling demonstrates is that the charge of genocide is not frivolous.” After extensive pressure from activists (including a March 2024 confrontation), Rep. Ocasio Cortez finally relented, saying (again with somewhat indirect phrasing): “If you want to know what an unfolding genocide looks like, open your eyes.”

² For instance, Chris Rabb released a statement on May 15, 2026, stating: “In Congress, I will join Reps. Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, and other progressives in co-sponsoring a resolution to recognize the Nakba and reaffirm Palestinian refugees’ right of return.”

³ This includes the “cowardice” from the September 2021 vote on $1 billion in funding for iron dome, as well as the July 2025 vote on an amendment to restrict iron dome funding. In both cases, Rep. Tlaib and Rep. Omar had more good sense than Rep. Ocasio-Cortez.

⁴ It appears, as of this writing, that Darializa Avila Chevalier's has been somewhat watered down to now simply say: “We must stop funding the bombing of children and families overseas, and start funding the programs here at home that can support our children reaching their full potential instead.” We will try not to read too much into this, but it is a potential warning sign that the consultants and advisors are weakening her position.

⁵ Although Rep. Ocasio-Cortez has said that she intends to enforce the Leahy Laws (the hardly-ever-applied laws that led to the resignation of whistleblower Josh Paul), that is precisely where her careful parsing between “offensive” and “defensive” weapons becomes relevant once again. The Leahy Laws do not apply to restrict arms sales to entire countries, but rather to individual military units (one loophole among many that is very easy to exploit). Therefore, by classifying iron dome as “defensive,” and the particular units deploying iron dome as doing heroic “defensive” work, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez is essentially signaling that the Leahy Laws would not restrict arms sales of iron dome equipment specifically. Since she is not accusing the iron dome units themselves of committing crimes (on the contrary, she is praising them for protecting civilians), then it follows that the Leahy Laws will not restrict their weapons purchases of any kind at all. This is exactly why she gives such confusing, roundabout answers, and why it has been so frustrating to see DSA members wishfully projecting their desired policies onto her.

⁶ In contrast to his reluctance to divest from Israel, Brad Lander has enthusiastically divested from Russia, saying on February 27, 2022 that he had begun the process to “cut President Putin and the oligarchs who enable him off from the global financial system.” Notably, Lander has never stated a desire to cut off Benjamin Netanyahu or Israeli oligarchs from the “global financial system.”

⁷ Notably, Brad Lander also already declared that “I look forward to voting for Hakeem to be the speaker of the House.” Rep. Ocasio-Cortez has likewise already declared: “I will be supporting Hakeem Jeffries for leader.” By contrast, Claire Valdez distinguished herself from rival candidate Antionio Reynoso in the debates by specifically stating that she is not yet committed to Hakeem Jeffries as speaker of the House. Even better, Oliver Larkin (who ran a great campaign in the heart of conservative Florida) responded in an interview that incoming socialists need to be prepared to “rake their own leader over the coals to extract some real material concessions” and that “you’re not going up there to make friends with Democratic Party or House leadership.” To be extra clear, he stated that he was “running in opposition to Hakeem Jeffries as House leader.”

⁸ During the debates, when directly questioned about the fact that he had appeared in a campaign ad with these two DSA candidates, Lander refused to say whether or not he supported their primary challenges, saying instead that he was just “pleased to be in an ad that Mayor Mamdani brought together.” This answer appears to be driven by some combination of cowardice and political calculation, but it also reveals that he doesn’t view himself as being part of a common project with these candidates in any meaningful sense.

⁹ Would Duss similarly say that apartheid South Africa or Nazi Germany has “the right to defend itself”?

¹⁰ If you’re reading this footnote, we probably don’t need to list out for you all of Fetterman’s terrible comments on Gaza. In short, he maintains that “If our party ever becomes, and just makes it official, the anti-Israel party, that’s when I would leave because that’s been a moral clarity for me.”

¹¹ For instance, former Bernie Sanders speechwriter David Sirota insisted in Jacobin on June 8, 2026 (very late in the game) that the “attacks on Graham Platner are politically motivated.” Likewise, The Majority Report repeatedly promoted Graham Platner’s candidacy in the left-ish media space, as did bad-haircut Ryan Grimm (portraying the attacks against Graham as being anti-white and attempting to undermine the accusers). The same can be said for John Favreau from Pod Save America, Hasan Piker (“I don’t care about the personal character of Graham Platner, I don’t care about the things that he’s done”), and many others. Sen. Sanders himself had endorsed Platner, as did Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Sen. Ed Markey, and Rep. Ro Khanna. It’s very bad that Platner’s pro-imperialism history — including a literal Nazi tattoo — was not a red line for any of these self-promoters.

¹² We have already seen some of this from Melat Kiros. On the campaign trail, and even in her professional life (where she was fired by the Sidley Austin law firm for publicly opposing Israel’s genocide), Kiros had taken a strong position. In a July 31, 2026 interview with PBS (Firing Line), however, Kiros’s position began to morph into something different (for which she later apologized). It is too early to get a solid read of Kiros, but we all need to keep pushing, and cannot take it for granted that DSA elected officials will keep moving in the right direction. The gravitational pull of careerism and “fitting in” with the existing political class is very strong, and we cannot underestimate it.

¹³ Such a questionnaire and minimum program would need to be worked out collectively within DSA but, in our opinion, should also include specific demands to release Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, end the blockade of Cuba, and immediately end all aggression against Iran and China.

¹⁴ General Assembly Resolution 3246 on Palestine very explicitly “reaffirms the legitimacy of the peoples' struggle for liberation from colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation by all available means, including armed struggle.”

¹⁵ Notably, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez said on July 30, 2026, that “one thing that I don’t like to be is alone” (meaning, in this context, supported by other centrist politicians). Although it’s not certain, building up our Congressional allies to be stronger than Rep. Ocasio-Cortez could reduce some of her more cowardly tendencies.

¹⁶ During his Mayoral campaign, Zohran Mamdani had pledged to arrest Benjamin Netanyahu if he ever visited New York City. However, after appointing zionist billionaire heiress Jessica Tisch to lead the NYPD (notwithstanding her previous role in suppressing pro-Palestine protesters under the corrupt Mayor Eric Adams), a person who “had no intention of arresting Mr. Netanyahu” and “was ready to make that clear with a formal statement,” Mayor Mamdani rushed to release a video that reneged on his pledge. This issue is slightly more complicated at the municipal level, and by the fact that there are certain immunities that apply to officials attending events at the United Nations, but we should not give in to any feelings of hopelessness. For crying out loud, Donald Trump illegally kidnapped Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, and assassinated Iranian leaders, so it seems clear that a future socialist president should not be shy about being more forceful in the face of such deranged opposition figures, or wielding the office for the ends of complying with anti-genocide laws and reining in these jerks. It is incredibly weak to just complain about those things on the campaign trail, and then argue that you yourself are powerless to do anything about it once in power.

¹⁷ This is precisely why it is so damaging when Rep. Ocasio-Cortez becomes a booster for Joe Biden, Abdul El-Sayed gushes praise for Kamala Harris, and Darializa Avila Chevalier “sincerely apologize[s]” to Kamala Harris for “disparaging” her. Are you sincere in your allegations of genocide, or not?

¹⁸ You can draw a straight line between Obama demobilizing the left, allowing lawlessness, and Trump expanding on that same lawlessness. In fact, there are important historical lessons that we should all learn, regarding the failures of liberalism leading to the rise of fascism. R. Palme Dutt’s classic work Fascism and Social Revolution explores this topic in more depth, and DSA should seriously take these lessons to heart.

Apply to Join 21CS

If you’re a DSA member, and interested in joining 21CS, be sure to apply here.