OLYMPIA — Three resolutions related to the ongoing war in Gaza passed at the Washington State Democratic Convention, but not without controversy.
Members of the Washington State Democratic Party passed Resolution 22, which calls for an immediate de-escalation and ceasefire, by a vote of 668-81. But the margins for two other resolutions were not as wide.
Resolution 23, which calls for the reduction of harm to civilians, passed 469-276. Resolution 27, which reaffirms the call for a ceasefire, but also calls for restoration of humanitarian aid and weapons-use accountability, passed 445-297.
During an allotted time of two minutes each, several delegates spoke about their stances on those resolutions, showing why they couldn’t get behind the majority.
Can the resolutions hurt Jewish people?
Karol Brown, a 41st Legislative District state committee representative, was a delegate who opposed Resolution 22. She said passing any of the resolutions could lead to a continued increase in antisemitic hate crimes.
“Resolutions like this can raise the temperature of the conversation locally,” Brown said. “And that can lead to hate crimes against Washingtonians of the Jewish faith while doing little to actually end the conflict thousands of miles away.”
Overly broad language, which Brown said the resolutions used, can be misconstrued and only amplify antisemitic allegations.
But others say Resolutions 23 and 27 simply call for the Democratic Party to reaffirm its commitment to combating not only Islamophobia, anti-Palestinian bigotry and anti-Arab bigotry, but also antisemitism. Both resolutions show support of Israelis and Palestinians, they said.
The resolutions refer to Israel as the perpetrator of war crimes and genocidal acts in Gaza, not Jewish people, they contend.
“Palestinian freedom and Jewish safety are intertwined,” said Tamara Erickson, a Jewish Democrat and delegate who spoke in favor of Resolution 22. “We cannot have one without the other.”
Should the U.S. fund UNRWA?
Rep. Tana Senn, D-Mercer Island, was a delegate who spoke against Resolutions 23 and 27. While she supported Resolution 22 and its call for a ceasefire, she said Resolutions 23 and 27 were controversial in their calls to restore funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East.
Senn said UNRWA has hundreds of employees serving in Hamas and has facilities with terror infrastructure. Moreover, the agency does not recognize Hamas as a terrorist organization, which another delegate, Susan Glicksberg, also mentioned in her opposition to Resolution 27.
“Humanitarian aid is critical, but we can find other organizations to provide that,” Senn said.
But Senn and Glicksberg’s claims of UNRWA’s relations with terrorism have been mostly debunked. A United Nations-commissioned independent review concluded that Israel did not provide evidence to support the state’s accusations that UNRWA employees were members of terrorist organizations.
The review also found that UNRWA mechanisms and procedures ensured the agency’s adherence to neutrality, despite problems such as the misuse of some of its facilities for political or military gains.
Though other agencies provide humanitarian aid to Palestinians, Resolution 27 states that UNRWA is the main United Nations agency doing so.
“The US suspending UNRWA funding has led to further loss of funding from allies including but not limited to the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada and Italy now leaving millions at further risk in the greatest humanitarian catastrophe of the past decade,” Resolution 27 states.
Do we need three Gaza-related resolutions, or just one?
Jeffrey Robinson, a 16th legislative district chairperson, was another delegate who spoke in opposition to Resolutions 23 and 27. He said passing one resolution would be “powerful,” but passing three “redundant.”
Additional resolutions would only move the U.S. further from rather than toward an agreement that could end the war, and could even ostracize Jewish voters, a key voting block for the Democratic Party, Senn said.
“We should pass one of the three, the one that matches who we are the best and sends the strongest statement of our values in relation to the issue that we are being confronted with,” Robinson said. “And let that be the foundation upon which we build a stronger, safer and secure world.”
Robinson was referring to Resolution 22. But delegates in favor of all three resolutions said Resolutions 23 and 27 were just as necessary if the Democratic Party wanted to stand by its stated values.
One of these delegates was Yaz Kader, one of Washington’s two uncommitted delegates who will be advocating for a ceasefire at the Democratic National Convention in August.
“Does America’s commitment to human rights have a limit? Is Americans’ commitment to justice and freedom only for some, or is it for all?” Kader said. “If you believe in universal human rights, you must vote to support all three of these resolutions.”
