DSA Co-Chair Makes Statement on Israel
For decades, the two-state solution has occupied the center of international diplomacy surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The details have changed from proposal to proposal, and negotiations have repeatedly failed, but the basic concept is familiar: Israel continues to exist as a Jewish state alongside an independent Palestinian state, generally envisioned in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
That is why a recent answer from Democratic Socialists of America co-chair Megan Romer deserves attention on its own terms.
During an interview with The New Yorker’s David Remnick, Romer was asked directly what the DSA actually wants.
“What is the position that DSA is headed toward here?” Remnick asked. “Is it for a two-state solution, or is it a binational, one-state solution? What in fact is the position of DSA?”
Romer's answer was remarkably short.
“Yeah, so our position is a free Palestine with the capital in Jerusalem,” she said.
“And so, I think that could be safely read as a one-state solution.”
There isn't much ambiguity in that response.
Romer did not endorse the conventional two-state framework. She described the DSA position as one that could “safely” be understood as supporting one Palestinian state.
That matters because the DSA is not merely a collection of college activists chanting slogans outside a lecture hall. The organization endorses candidates, organizes politically and has members serving in elected office.
It also gives additional context to the phrase “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” which has generated years of arguments over precisely what its users mean.
Critics interpret the slogan as demanding the elimination of Israel because the territory between the Jordan River and Mediterranean Sea includes the entire modern state of Israel. Some supporters dispute that interpretation, arguing that the phrase can instead describe equal rights and freedom for Palestinians and Israelis throughout the territory.
Romer's answer removes at least some of that uncertainty regarding the DSA leadership's institutional position: She described it as a “one-state solution.”
What that state would actually look like, however, remains an enormous unanswered question.
A one-state arrangement does not, by definition, establish that Jews would be expelled or killed. Such an outcome cannot simply be assumed from Romer's two sentences. One-state proposals can take substantially different forms, including proposals for a binational democratic state with equal citizenship.
But that distinction makes the questions Romer did not answer even more important.
Would Israel cease to exist as a Jewish state under the DSA's preferred arrangement? Would Israelis and Palestinians have equal citizenship and political rights? What protections would exist for Jewish and Arab communities? Who would control Jerusalem? How would Hamas and other armed organizations be disarmed or incorporated? What constitutional structure would prevent either population from dominating the other?
And perhaps most fundamentally: What happens to the millions of Israeli Jews already living there?
Those aren't technical details that can be filled in later. They are central to determining what “one state” means in practice.
The historical record gives both populations reasons to treat those questions seriously. Israelis have endured wars, terrorism and attacks explicitly directed at Jewish civilians, including Hamas' Oct. 7, 2023, assault. Palestinians have endured displacement, military occupation, settlement expansion and devastating warfare.
Simply declaring one state does not resolve any of those conflicts.
The political significance of Romer's comments also depends on keeping another distinction clear. The Democratic Socialists of America and the Democratic Party are not the same organization. DSA members and endorsed politicians operate within Democratic politics, but their positions cannot automatically be attributed to every Democrat in Congress, much less the party as a whole.
The DSA nevertheless seeks political influence, and its positions therefore deserve the same scrutiny applied to any organization attempting to shape American policy.
Romer has now provided a particularly clear position for voters to examine.
Asked whether the DSA supported two states or one, its co-chair didn't dodge the question or retreat into diplomatic language.
She said “a free Palestine with the capital in Jerusalem.”
Then she supplied the interpretation herself: “a one-state solution.”