For Democrats, the Case for Israel is About the Future

The party's debate over Israel is really a debate about whether Democrats still believe in democratic alliances, deterrence, and American global leadership.

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.

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.