Subscribe now

By Rachel Bombach, Chief Policy Officer, Democratic Majority for Israel

The Democratic Party is at an inflection point on Israel. Over the past two years, support for conditioning or restricting U.S. security assistance to Israel has moved from the political margins toward the center of Democratic politics. There is no shortage of opinions on what has driven this shift – from disagreements with Prime Minister Netanyahu and his approach to Democratic administrations to the heartbreaking war in Gaza that followed Hamas’ barbaric attacks on October 7.

But the debate Democrats are having about Israel is ultimately bigger than Israel itself. It is about whether the party still sees democratic alliances, deterrence, and American global leadership as essential tools for advancing U.S. national security in an increasingly dangerous world.

Support for Israel is not a concession to the past or a relic of Cold War politics. It is a forward-looking national security position rooted in democratic alliances, deterrence, and a serious understanding of how American power operates in the 21st century.

Republicans have exploited Democratic division to position themselves as the sole party of strength, deterrence, and support for Israel. When Democrats retreat into process arguments or avoid making a broader national security case altogether, Republicans deepen their ownership of the issue. Israel becomes increasingly identified with one party, one ideology, and one side of America’s political divide.

Erosion of bipartisan support weakens deterrence, encourages adversaries to exploit perceived political divisions, and turns one of America’s most important democratic alliances into a partisan culture-war issue rather than a strategic security partnership. That is bad for U.S. interests, bad for Democrats, and bad for the U.S.-Israel relationship itself.

The U.S.-Israel Relationship Is Built on American Interests

The foundation of the U.S.-Israel relationship is a strategic alliance rooted in American national security interests. The United States faces simultaneous challenges from China, Russia, Iran, and transnational terrorism. America benefits from allies that can share responsibilities, contribute advanced capabilities, and reduce the likelihood that U.S. troops will bear the primary burden of regional instability.

Israel is uniquely positioned to do exactly that. It is America’s most capable democratic ally in the Middle East, bringing critical intelligence, cyber, air, missile defense, and technological capabilities that complement and strengthen U.S. power. Israel has proven it is both willing and capable of operating against shared threats in coordination with the United States, including integrated missile defense, intelligence sharing, and operations to degrade air defense and proxy capabilities.

No other American partner in the region brings this combination of technological sophistication, operational capability, intelligence integration, and real-world combat experience.

Share

Some Democrats might be skeptical of claims about perceived threats and how to mitigate them, especially after the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But recognizing the dangers posed by Iran’s regional proxy network, nuclear ambitions, attacks on U.S. personnel and partners, or the destabilizing role of terrorist organizations like Hamas does not require embracing endless war.

The lesson of Iraq and Afghanistan was not that alliances are unnecessary or that America should become isolationist; it was that the United States cannot independently sustain readiness across every theater simultaneously. Strong allies and credible deterrence reduce the likelihood of larger wars and lessen the chance that American servicemembers will ultimately be drawn into direct conflict.

Democrats Should Own the National Security Argument

For years, Republicans have claimed ownership over national security while Democrats too often retreat into defensive language focused primarily on restraint, process, or criticism of military action. That retreat has carried political and strategic costs: it has weakened the bipartisan foundation of support for Israel, reinforced the perception that Democrats are uncomfortable articulating American power, and allowed Republicans to monopolize the language of deterrence, alliances, and strength.

In reality, Democrats are positioned to make a stronger and more credible national security case precisely because the strongest traditions of Democratic foreign policy have been rooted in democratic alliances, coalition building, and the understanding that deterrence prevents larger wars and diplomacy is a critical component of ending wars.

That tradition stretches from President Truman and the creation of NATO to Democratic presidents who understood that American leadership depends on both military strength and strong alliances capable of advancing shared interests.

Looking ahead, Democrats must be able to explain clearly why force may sometimes be necessary if diplomacy is exhausted, why timing matters, and why military action must be tied to achievable political objectives and the means to achieve them. Credible deterrence depends on adversaries believing the United States and its allies are both willing and capable of action when vital interests are threatened.

That is especially true in the Middle East, where American weakness or ambiguity has historically created openings for Iranian escalation, proxy warfare, attacks on international shipping, and threats to regional partners. Israel’s military actions in Gaza have raised concerns, but acknowledging those concerns does not require abandoning a critical ally or denying the broader strategic realities facing the United States and its allies.

Strong alliances are aligned with progressive values; they are one of the primary ways democratic nations preserve stability, constrain authoritarian aggression, and avoid larger wars.

Nor should Democrats concede the idea that support for Israel belongs exclusively to conservatives. The modern U.S.-Israel relationship was built and sustained across decades by Democratic presidents and lawmakers who understood that democratic alliances and American national security are deeply interconnected.

Strength Requires Credibility

Supporting Israel does not mean defending every policy of every Israeli government. Credibility depends on the willingness to acknowledge when far-right rhetoric, settlement expansion, or policies in the West Bank undermine Israel’s democratic character, regional standing, and security.

Pro-Israel Democrats are uniquely positioned to make those arguments constructively and credibly because support for Israel should be rooted in preserving both its security and its democratic future.

At the same time, Democrats should reject efforts to hold Israel to standards that are rarely applied to other democratic allies confronting terrorism, proxy warfare, and urban combat. Israel should be subject to scrutiny and debate like any democratic partner. But debates surrounding Israel have increasingly included forms of isolation, delegitimization, and proposed conditionality that would rarely be contemplated for allies facing comparable threats. That double standard undermines both American credibility and the possibility of a more serious debate.

Democrats Do Not Need to Choose

The future of Democratic foreign policy should not be built around distancing ourselves from allies, abandoning the language of strength, or treating American power as inherently suspect. It should be built around a confident understanding of how democratic alliances, military credibility, diplomacy, and deterrence work together to prevent larger conflicts and protect American interests.

A strong U.S.-Israel relationship advances American security, strengthens democratic cooperation, improves military readiness, and helps deter adversaries that threaten both countries. The question facing Democrats is not whether support for Israel remains politically convenient. The future of Democratic foreign policy will depend in part on whether the party still has the confidence to make that case.

Source: Haim Goldberg

Subscribe now

With negotiations on the future of U.S. security assistance to Israel expected to get underway soon, there’s a growing debate about what such an agreement should look like. Some in Washington are calling for the United States to place conditions on or abruptly cease security assistance to Israel, including for missile defense. They argue that Israel is a country “like all other allies of ours…” They point out that even Prime Minister Netanyahu told The Economist in January that he wants to taper off U.S. military aid within the next decade.

But conflating our support for Israel with how we assist other democracies with advanced economies is deeply misguided. Unlike Israel, countries like Germany, Japan, and the United Kingdom are not facing persistent existential threats and calls for their destruction. These countries also host U.S. military bases and tens of thousands of American troops. These deployments cost hundreds of billions of dollars and put Americans directly in harm’s way. Israel has never asked for that. There is no permanent U.S. troop presence in Israel. On the contrary, Israel bears its own defense burden and uses a reserve system to power their armed forces. Treating Israel like “other allies” would require actually inserting Americans more directly into the conflict and cost billions more.

Let’s lay out the stakes. The Iron Dome, David’s Sling, and the Arrow system shield millions of civilians, including Jews, Christians, Muslims, Druze, and thousands of Americans living in Israel from missiles fired by Iran and its proxies. They save lives. They have done so thousands of times since Hamas’ October 7 attacks on Israel. Supporting these systems is consistent with calls to reduce harm to civilians. When incoming fire is intercepted, there is less pressure for large-scale retaliation.

Since October 2023, Israel has been fighting simultaneously against Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis. Iran, which funds and directs these proxies to fight Israel on its behalf, is only recently a direct combatant. But its pursuit of long-range ballistic missile capabilities and nuclear weapons make it a threat to the U.S., and it has been and remains committed to Israel’s destruction. Iranian ballistic missiles can reach U.S. forces in the region in under 15 minutes.

U.S. military assistance is not a handout. It is a strategic investment intended to foster intelligence sharing, joint research and development, military interoperability, and battlefield-tested technologies that directly benefit U.S. forces. The consequences of suddenly ending security assistance would be the opposite of what proponents hope for. Aid is one of the few mechanisms that embeds American influence directly into Israeli defense planning and procurement. If U.S. aid ended without warning, Israel wouldn’t stop buying weapons. It would buy them elsewhere with zero American input into how and where they are used.

Let’s be clear: there is a significant difference between a thoughtful, phased evolution of our bilateral relationship and pulling the plug while Israel is fighting a multi-front war, its economy is under strain, and the region is more volatile than ever before. We can discuss how the U.S.-Israeli security relationship should change with the times, how our partnership must evolve as Israel’s own capabilities grow and its security needs change, and how we can align on a long-term vision for the region. But that debate must bring a sober, serious analysis grounded in prioritizing America’s interests and Israel’s security. It cannot shift with political changes or in the middle of a war, especially when American troops are actively deployed in the region.

The question is not whether the U.S.-Israel relationship should evolve — it should. But any changes must be grounded in America’s national security, ensure Israel’s security, and expand the economic, intelligence, and diplomatic partnerships that sustain long-term regional stability. Anything less risks trading an enduring strategic partnership for momentary political gain.

Share

Source: Facebook — The People’s Coalition

Subscribe now

I grew up in the suburbs of Detroit, Michigan. I know its communities, and visit often, as I still have family and friends in the Detroit area. I graduated from the University of Michigan Law School. My parents, sisters, son, and other family members attended U of M. Even though I have lived in and represented North Carolina in the U.S. House of Representatives, I still feel closely connected to Michigan.

That’s why what happened at the recent Michigan Democratic Party convention is so troubling.

The booing, name-calling, and shouting down of a pro-Israel member of the U.S. Congress, a hard-working candidate for the U.S. Senate, was appalling. The Michigan Democratic Party’s decision to nominate a candidate for the University of Michigan Board of Regents who had previously expressed support for Hezbollah and amplified explicitly antisemitic posts — and the defeat of a Jewish Regent whose home had been defaced by anti-Israel activists in the middle of the night — speaks volumes about what is happening in the Michigan Democratic party. A Jewish friend of mine who attended the convention told me she and others were actually afraid for their safety. This isn’t just a values problem. It’s a political one.

Fortunately, Democrats Kristen McDonald Rivet and Elissa Slotkin did something that more elected officials should be willing to do: They called it out.

McDonald Rivet represents one of the most competitive districts in the country. From her vantage point in a Trump-won district, she understands something that can get lost in activist spaces and party conventions: how hard it is to win — and how easy it is to lose:

Senator Slotkin made clear she believes the Board of Regents nominee’s actions are unacceptable:

The consequences of this behavior are not theoretical. It is a threat to the future of our party and our country. It is driving people away from the Democratic party.

When I sat on the U.S. House Education and Workforce Committee, I was a participant in the hearings on campus antisemitism. When I asked one of the college presidents how he could have allowed antisemitism to become normalized on his campus, he looked at me and said, “I guess I should have done more.” Let’s not be the party that allows antisemitism to become normalized. We can and must do more.

Current Climate

Last month, an antisemitic attack targeted Temple Israel — a synagogue that sits at the heart of Michigan’s Jewish community. Temple Israel is my family’s congregation. Its beloved senior rabbi performed my mother’s funeral last year. For those of us who grew up there, places like Temple Israel are anchors of community, identity, and belonging.

At a time when Jewish Americans are already facing a sharp rise in threats and harassment, an attack like this is deeply unsettling.

That’s what makes the events at the convention more than just an internal party dispute.

There is a through line — one we should be honest about — between increasingly aggressive, dehumanizing rhetoric and the environment in which acts like this become more likely.

When Jewish Democrats are being harassed, when a Jewish elected official like Jordan Acker is pushed out after sustained targeting, and when rhetoric that echoes or elevates extremist actors enters the mainstream of party processes, it sends a broader message — whether intended or not.

And that message is being received in a climate where the stakes could not be higher.

Democratic politics, especially in a state like Michigan, depend on coalition-building. That requires discipline, message clarity, and a baseline level of mutual respect among people who have strong disagreements.

Calling Out Extremism in Our Own Ranks

If Democrats are going to be credible in calling out extremism in American politics, we have to be equally clear-eyed about it within our own coalition.

That doesn’t mean policing every disagreement or shutting down civil debate. It does mean drawing bright, principled lines.

Praising terrorist organizations should be off limits. Harassing fellow Democrats because they are Jewish or pro-Israel should be condemned, not applauded. Creating an environment where people feel unsafe or unwelcome should be deemed unacceptable by all.

Those are not just differences of opinion. They must be disqualifying behaviors.

Yes, to do it is uncomfortable and it risks intra-party conflict, but it’s necessary. And not calling it out is politically self-defeating.

The Democratic Party has always been a coalition. Its strength is in its diversity of backgrounds, perspectives, and experiences. But a coalition only works if there are shared standards.

Kristen McDonald Rivet put it plainly: we don’t bully, we don’t shout people down, and we don’t make people feel unsafe because of who they are. And we reject all forms of hate, including antisemitism.

That shouldn’t be controversial. It should be foundational. Because if the goal is to defeat MAGA and win sustainable majorities, we need to do better.

Explore our message hub for additional memos and analysis, and follow along on our social channels.

Share

Donate to DMFI

This is DMFI’s dedicated space for analysis, commentary, and briefings—delivered to your inbox and available on your time.

At DMFI, we envision a Democratic Party—and a Democratic majority in Congress—that is proudly pro-Israel, supports a strong U.S.-Israel alliance, and advances core Democratic priorities and interests.

This Substack will bring you directly into that conversation with perspectives and commentary from our President & CEO Brian Romick, insights from me, Board Chair of Democratic Majority for Israel, analysis from our Chief Policy Officer Rachel Bombach, and contributions from policy experts and leading voices across the Democratic and foreign policy communities.

Our goal is to be a resource for Democrats who want to understand what’s happening, why it matters, and what’s being done about it.

With gratitude,

Kathy Manning
Board Chair, Democratic Majority for Israel

Share

Introduction

I had the honor of representing North Carolina’s 6th District in Congress, a district that flipped from red to blue in 2020 for the first time in more than three decades. That experience reinforced something important: winning in competitive districts requires pragmatic, values-driven leadership, including on foreign policy.

During my time in Congress, Israel faced repeated crises, from Hamas firing nearly 4,500 rockets against Israeli civilians in May 2021, to internal protests over proposed judicial reforms, to the horrific Hamas attack on October 7th, 2023.

Throughout that time, I worked with my Democratic colleagues to advance pro-Israel resolutions, met with the devastated families of Israeli hostages kidnapped by Hamas, held events at the Capitol to promote a deeper understanding of the issues, and secured supplemental security funding for Israel as it fought against those dedicated to destroying Israel, including Iran and its regional terrorist proxies. At that time, there was broad Democratic support for these efforts, because my colleagues understood the threats surrounding our only Democratic ally in the Middle East.

Today, Israel faces increasingly difficult choices as its enemies grow more aggressive - from October 7th to Iran’s advancing nuclear ambitions and its deadly network of proxies, which also threaten U.S. national security interests. No country can be expected to accept constant attacks and escalating threats on its borders. Americans certainly would not tolerate the attacks Israelis endure day after day and year after year.

War is a terrible thing, and the impact on innocent civilians is horrific, no matter where they live. Solving the Middle East’s challenges will take hard work, serious diplomacy, realistic actors, and honesty. Simplistic claims about Israel don’t advance peace; they make it harder to achieve.

That’s why clarity matters.

It requires rejecting false equivalencies and easy slogans in favor of clear, fact-based analysis. It means recognizing that supporting Israel’s security and upholding Democratic values are not in tension; they are mutually reinforcing.

And it requires a willingness to hold nuance: to support Israel’s right to defend itself, to care deeply about Palestinian civilians, to oppose terrorism, to question some of the current Israeli government’s policies while still standing with the country and its people, and to remain committed to a more peaceful stable future.

That is the Democratic Party we are fighting to uphold.

That is the conversation we will lead here.

Thank you for being with us.

Explore our message hub for additional memos and analysis, and follow along on our social channels.

Subscribe now