Socialists for Goliath?

How a small crew of disgruntled members lost their way, rage quit DSA (multiple times), and enlisted in the army of those enabling Israel's genocidal campaign in Gaza.

Aftermath of an attack on Jabalia in Gaza by the IDF in 2009. (Photo by “Rafahkid” on Flickr)

“The Gang of 24.” That’s how we might remember the crew of ex-DSA members who rage quit the organization in a number of open letters, culminating in a screed in The New Republic in early November 2023. (Several members of the Gang of 24 couldn’t get enough and published additional resignation statements elsewhere.) Disgusted by DSA’s calls for a ceasefire to stop Israel’s genocidal campaign against Gaza, these “longtime members” bolted.

No doubt that they would protest that this is not why they quit DSA. In their TNR piece they voiced two complaints, which boil down to “DSA supports Hamas” and “DSA has been taken over by wreckers.” But since neither objection passes the sniff test, probably neither is their real reason for quitting. The reality is that the Gang of 24 have a great deal of unspoken sympathy for the “Goliath who aspires to be David,” and they have drawn the very correct conclusion that that is incompatible with membership in DSA.

Does DSA Really Support Hamas?

To buttress their claims that DSA cheered on the attacks of October 7, the Gang of 24 cite Congressman Ritchie Torres. If the gang were more in touch with US politics, they would realize Torres’s unhinged rivalry (bordering on obsession) with DSA hardly makes him a credible source.

Contra Torres’s claims, however, DSA did not organize a rally celebrating the October 7 attacks. Volunteers with several chapters of DSA and DSA’s International Committee did tweet links for protests opposing Israel’s occupation and apartheid, organized in anticipation of Israel’s genocidal campaign to come. Reasonable people can debate if the protests should have been held a few days later, but to argue that three tweets are evidence that DSA “promoted cheerleading demonstrations in support of Hamas,” as the gang does, is more than a stretch.

The gang also rapped DSA on the knuckles for making statements that did not sufficiently condemn Hamas’s attacks. What you wouldn’t learn from their resignation letter is that the statements of NYC-DSA and national DSA were firm in their condemnation of the murder of civilians.

The Gang of 24 alleges that DSA has demonstrated “indifference to human pain and suffering.” This despite the fact that the national DSA statement said “we unequivocally condemn the killing of all civilians” and NYC-DSA’s statement made clear that: “We deeply mourn the loss of life in the region and unequivocally condemn all hatred and the killing of all civilians.” If that weren’t enough, the chapter statement also says: “Our sympathy and condolences go out to those who have lost loved ones or have loved ones in harm’s way.”

Will the Real Wreckers Please Stand Up?

Perhaps out of a nagging sense that the case against DSA wouldn’t have legs if it focused only on the organization’s response to October 7, the Gang of 24 decided to tack on a giant nonsequitur in their TNR statement, echoing signatory Maurice Isserman’s personal resignation letter in The Nation. DSA, the gang alleged across the two main house organs of American liberalism, is sadly full of sectarians and purists hell bent on wrecking it.

Isserman, who as far as I know has had near-zero contact with DSA in years, alleged that DSA is overrun with “entryists” — members of various alien sects that are trying to lead DSA astray. Isserman, somewhat surprisingly for a historian, provided no evidence for this claim besides listing the names of various tendencies within the organization. As an active member in DSA for more than a decade, I can assure him that each of those tendencies, and almost all members of DSA’s national and chapter leadership, are made up of homegrown democratic socialists.

The whole gang got in on the action in TNR. DSA had the temerity — the gang insisted — to disagree with one of its elected officials in the past when he voted in Congress to send weapons to Israel. The Gang of 24 are certainly entitled to disagree with the majority opinion in DSA. But how DSA’s response in this case can be dressed up as sectarian is a real puzzle. A firm stance against Israeli apartheid is a core political perspective of the organization, and DSA hopes its elected officials will represent the democratically decided political perspectives of its membership.

DSA is not dominated by wreckers of any kind. Its debates on Israel have been heated at times but also democratic and productive. The real question is, can the same be said for the actions taken by these disgruntled ex-members?

What’s Really Going on Here

Even experienced political people sometimes have a hard time making unpopular arguments, especially when they might be experiencing some degree of cognitive dissonance of their own. The gang’s resignation statements bare all the tell-tale signs of this condition. The poorly sourced claims. The nonsequitur about sectarians, entryists, and purity. The resignation letters read more like “throw-the-kitchen-sink-against-them” arguments than a forthright statement of actual political disagreement.

There is however a real disagreement here. If Larry Mishel’s public statements on the matter are any indication, the ex-members hold three positions that are, in fact, at odds with the overwhelming majority view in DSA.

First, their sympathies are decidedly on the side of the occupiers (Israel), while DSA’s lean decidedly towards the side of the occupied (Palestine). Only a few days ago Larry Mishel, one of the gang’s most prominent members, asked Twitter followers to attend a contingent at the “March for Israel” organized by the liberal Zionist organization J Street. (No, Mishel did not express any sympathy for the thousands being killed in Gaza at this moment when promoting the march. This is what “indifference to human pain and suffering” actually looks like.)

Second, statement signers like Mishel oppose a ceasefire, while DSA sees a ceasefire as an absolutely necessary step to stop an ongoing genocide.

And third, these ex-members endorse the view that those organizing in solidarity with Palestine should “shut the fuck up,” actually.

Why can’t they say this clearly? The gang is honest enough to acknowledge that something is not right in the House of Netanyahu. They’ve got no love for Israel’s far-right regime, and no doubt some of them at least are anguished at the slaughter of thousands of children in Gaza. Some of them probably worry that a genocide is unfolding. So now is not the time to publicly quit while making a more full-throated defense of Israel. Better, therefore, to hide behind other objections.

Some Final Thoughts

I’m certain the Gang of 24 feels at least somewhat comforted by their own “courage” to quit what is, in their minds, a disgraced organization. They are the people of decency, reason, and nuance, against the hordes of young fanatics. Surely their letters earned Leo Casey some pats on the back at the HQ of the American Federation of Teachers, and Harold Meyerson some handshakes in editorial rooms, and the rest a hearty cheer in the faculty dining room or on the shuffleboard court.

But who should really hang their heads in disgrace? The thousands of volunteers in DSA and the Palestine solidarity movement who are organizing for peace, or the well-positioned staff and intellectuals with influence who refuse to call for a ceasefire during a genocide? Who is committing an act of moral and political cowardice? Who is providing support to a murderous regime that has real consequences for people’s lives?

And who are the real wreckers? The activists who organized to change the position of a long-standing organization through years of democratic discussion and debate — and dared to ask elected representatives of that organization to support that position — or those who publicly (and repeatedly) rage quit and defamed their former organization in a high-stakes moment?

I will try to do more justice to the Gang of 24’s position than they ever did to DSA’s. They (quite rightly) despise Netanyahu. They see his far right agenda as a threat to the Israeli people. But their baseline sympathies still lie with the Israeli state. They refuse to see what is so obvious to everyone else on the left — that the rot goes much deeper than “Bibi.” Israel’s apartheid regime and occupation of Palestine surpass some of the twentieth century’s worst racist dictatorships in terms of cruelty and injustice. The gang’s generation bravely fought against apartheid in South Africa — but they are now twisting in the wind while this generation wages its own struggle against apartheid and genocide.

As “longtime members” of the left, the Gang of 24 are well versed in socialist traditions and the meaning of solidarity. They know what it means to live in a “which side are you on?” moment. Unfortunately however, by publicly denouncing DSA and by giving credence to the worst and most dishonest attacks against one of the few political organizations in the US fighting hard for a ceasefire, the gang picked their side. There will always be a home in DSA to return to for any ex-member who comes to their senses, but for now I agree with the gang: they belong in Goliath’s ranks.