Debunking 5 Myths A Pro-Israel Lobby Group Is Spreading About the US-Israel Relationship
The 'Democratic Majority for Israel' attempts to send a softer message on Israel than AIPAC, but a look at its website shows that it basically functions as an AIPAC cut-out.
Almost everyone, at this point, has heard of AIPAC, it seems. The Israel-first lobby has made itself notorious through its hardline stance – and has become an increasingly toxic name in American politics, particularly on the Democratic side of the aisle. But that’s where AIPAC’s lesser-known counterpart, Democratic Majority for Israel (DMFI), hopes to fill the gap being created as Democrats forswear AIPAC funding.
Founded in 2019 in the wake of Donald Trump’s election and dismantling of the US-Iran deal negotiated by the Obama administration – both of which many Democrats saw as having been supported by AIPAC – DMFI sends a softer message: It supports a two-state solution for Israel-Palestine. And it is sometimes critical of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. But make no mistake – it is here to shore up the flagging (one might say, evaporating) support for Israel among Democrats, through lobbying and, via its sister organization DMFI PAC, with political spending that totals over $25 million since its founding. As DMFI PAC’s webpage explains, the organization “works to elect pro-Israel Democrats up and down the ballot and defeat those few anti-Israel Democratic candidates” – a description it rounds off by explaining that “being pro-Israel isn’t only good policy, it’s also good politics.” That’s a catchphrase that will surely be familiar to long-time AIPAC watchers. And if there was any remaining doubt, it’s worth noting that not only are some of DMFI PAC’s biggest contributors are also top contributors to AIPAC, but also that DMFI and AIPAC often back the same candidates.
AIPAC lists on its website a series of supposed benefits the US receives as a result of its relationship with Israel – a series of myths that we responded to with the actual facts here.
So, last month, when DMFI posted its arguments for “Why the US-Israel Alliance Matters for Democrats,” we felt it was only fair to give its list the same treatment. Here are its assertions – and why they are so, so wrong:
Myth #1
“Democratic voters support maintaining the US-Israel alliance. Polling commissioned by… DMFI PAC, late last year shows that a majority of Democrats favor maintaining a strong US-Israel relationship.”
The Facts
Whatever the results of a poll by an organization explicitly dedicated to maintaining Democratic Party support for Israel may claim (and DMFI has not released the full data, or even the question it asked to obtain this result), multiple independent polls in recent years have shown cratering US public support for Israel, particularly among Democrats. For instance, a March 2026 NBC News Poll found that just 13% of Democrats hold a positive view of Israel, with 57% seeing it in a negative light. An October 2025 Pew Poll found that 77% of Democrats have an unfavorable view of the government of Israel. A February 2026 Gallup Poll found that a supermajority of Democrats (65%) have greater sympathies for Palestinians compared to those who favor Israel (17%). And, most recently, an April 7, 2026, Pew Poll shows that 80% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents view Israel negatively.
DMFI should release the full poll it conducted, including the precise phrasing of its question. Without that, we’re marking this one a complete myth.
Myth #2
“The US-Israel alliance is independent of any single administration or conflict. Israel maintains the ability to defend itself by itself and strengthens regional deterrence without requiring permanent US troop deployments.”
The Facts
The first part of this statement isn’t actually a myth; it’s a problem. No US relationship with any country should exist in a vacuum, with no regard to US politics or world events. As Thomas Jefferson said, the US should not enter “entangling alliances” – and what could be more entangling of an alliance than one that is entirely independent of reality? As we have seen with back-to-back administrations that have pursued an approach of unconditional support for Israel, the absence of any willingness to question the relationship is a harm to the US, not a reason for it to matter to Democrats.
When it comes to Israel’s ability to defend itself – and to do so “without requiring permanent US troop deployments” – would DMFI like to put this to the test? The US provides Israel with billions of dollars every year in taxpayer funding to support its military, and is also almost the sole source of Israel’s fighter jet fleet and most of its munitions. In recent months, the US has deployed multiple naval vessels equipped with missile defense systems to protect Israel from incoming Iranian ballistic missiles – firing several years’ worth of US interceptor production to defend Israel. Meanwhile, US troop deployments around the Middle East – many of which seem greatly intended to respond to conflicts generated relative to Israel – certainly seem permanent.
Myth #3
“US security assistance to Israel is worth the investment, comparable to what the US invests in other critical partners such as South Korea, Japan, and Ukraine. Unlike those allies, however, Israel does not require a permanent US troop presence.”
The Facts
On this one, DMFI is simply – and profoundly – factually incorrect. The US provides Israel with $3.8 billion a year in security assistance – but Korea and Japan pay the US for its role in their defense. In fact, South Korea pays the United States $1.14 billion annually in host nation cost-sharing under the 2024 Special Measures Agreement, while under the US-Japan Host Nation Agreement, Japan pays $1.3 billion a year. Korea and Japan also spend their own money when buying US weapons – rather than relying, as Israel does, on handouts from the US taxpayer. And while it is true that Korea and Japan host extensive US bases (which, again, they pay for), DMFI is also wrong that Israel does not require a permanent US presence: a recent presentation by the US Defense Department confirmed the presence of a long-rumored US base in Israel at Site 512, and since DMFI made their post, Israel has explicitly invited the US to relocate much of their regional presence to bases in the country.
Myth #4
“Preserving the alliance advances long-term US interests. Israel provides unique capabilities, including missile defense systems, cyber expertise, regional intelligence, and operational experience, that strengthen American security and reduce the likelihood that the US would face future crises without capable partners.”
The Facts:
Are those “unique capabilities” Israel provides, such as missile defense systems, the same Iron Dome, Arrow, and David’s Sling systems that the US itself subsidizes to the tune of billions of dollars? And have any of those systems ever been used to help defend the US (aside from our own forces who are based in Israel)? Moreover, given the conflict with Iran, how can anyone argue that the partnership with Israel “reduces the likelihood that the US would face future crises” – with or without capable partners? The US-Israel relationship is a direct cause of the crises we currently face, and Americans – certainly including an overwhelming majority of Democrats – would rather we not face them at all, rather than enter them at the behest of Israel.
Here’s a fact: DMFI faces an unenviable challenge. Its mission these days is to defend the indefensible to a swiftly thinning audience. Its greatest tool in this effort remains the war-chest of DMFI PAC and the constellation of dark money organizations that align with it. But when it comes to rational persuasion, all the group can offer are unfounded assertions, faulty logic, and, in at least one instance above, outright falsehoods.
If you visit the DMFI PAC webpage, you will find, prominently displayed, a quote from Democratic House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries: “I am grateful for the support of DMFI PAC and look forward to continuing to advance the unbreakable US-Israel bond for the good of the Middle East and the world.” For as long as Democratic leaders associate themselves with AIPAC, as well as an organization that, for all intents and purposes, functions as an AIPAC cut-out, the party’s credibility will be the greatest myth of all.
Josh Paul is the co-founder of A New Policy, which was founded in October 2024 with the goal of reshaping US policies toward Israel and Palestine and bringing them in line with America’s interests. Paul resigned from the Biden administration over its policy of unconditional support for Israel's assault on Gaza.
Robert McDonald is the senior legislative analyst at A New Policy.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of Zeteo.
Check out more from Zeteo:
 | A guest post by
|
 | A guest post by
|
Thank you as always. Have to break the chain.
For many years I was an ardent supporter of Israel. MSM would have you believe that this is still the abused Israel of the 40's and we should all stand beside them against the rest of the world, if necessary. The ugly truth, some 8 decades later, is much, much different. They've become a version of WW2 Germany, and it is now the Palestinians who find themselves in the same shoes jews found themselves in less than a century ago. It's sad, and incredibly disheartening to see modern-day Israel dishing out the same sort of pain and torment that they, themselves, endured. I wish the best for both the Israeli and Palestinian people, but I think much like in the US, those in power have different ideas of what 'peace' looks like.