The DSA Is Not the Democratic Party – Don’t inflate its influence!
The Democratic Socialists of America won a handful of congressional seats. Their supporters are celebrating as though they’ve taken over Washington, while Republicans are helping spread that illusion. Both are doing Israel a disservice.
The Numbers Tell the Story
Let me make three things perfectly clear.
The Democratic Socialists of America have not taken over the Democratic Party or Congress or the federal government.
But listening to the DSA’s rhetoric following the 11/3/2026, midterm elections, you might think they had just taken over Washington.
They have NOT!
Democrats have secured control of the House of Representatives, with approximately 245 seats and 21 more projected, some races still being decided.
The DSA’s 2026 Congressional Record
The Democratic Socialists of America backed only 25 candidates in the 2026 U.S. House primaries, including two incumbents: AOC and Rashida Tlaib.
That left 23 potential freshman members of Congress. Of those 23, 18 lost their primaries. Only five advanced to the general election, in reliably Democratic districts. Not one flipped a Republican-held seat.
So much for the DSA tidal wave we keep hearing about. From where I stand, it looks more like a ripple.
The DSA increased its own representation in Congress without adding a single seat to the Democrats’ House victory. They contributed nothing to the numbers and took out 5 seasoned effective representatives.
That’s approximately 3% to 4% of House Democrats!
Not 30%. Not 40%.
And yet, listening to some of the rhetoric, you would think the DSA had become the dominant force in the Democratic Party. NOT!
Its supporters are celebrating their victories, challenging Democratic leadership, and attempting to project influence far beyond their actual congressional numbers.
Some DSA-aligned politicians and activists are already discussing challenges to Hakeem Jeffries’ leadership in the House and calling for Chuck Schumer to step aside in the Senate. BTW we can credit Chuck for recruiting excellent Candidates.
The DSA may be vocal. Its newly elected representatives may be aggressive. They may attract considerable media attention.
But publicity is not the same as political power, and a handful of congressional seats is not a mandate to dictate the Democratic Party’s future.
It is also worth mentioning a third congresswoman frequently associated with the movement: Ilhan Omar of Minnesota. Although Omar shares many of the DSA’s political positions, she is not a documented member of the organization.
Ocasio-Cortez and Tlaib, by contrast, are DSA members.
The DSA did not flip a Republican-held seat. That is a distinction worth remembering.
And it raises a legitimate question.
Is the DSA more interested in defeating Republicans or replacing Democrats who don’t subscribe to its political agenda?
The DSA’s concentration of successful campaigns in Democratic-held districts did not for the party. Had they proved themselves by flipping Republican seats than they would have bragging rights.
Republicans: You’re Helping the DSA’s Propaganda!
There’s another group helping create the impression that the DSA has taken over the Democratic Party.
Republicans!
Republican politicians and commentators are portraying Democrats as communists, socialists, jihadists, and enemies of Israel.
They take a small ideological faction and present it as though that faction represents the entire Democratic Party.
And why?
Because portraying Democrats as hostile to Israel provides Republicans with a political wedge issue.
They hope to convince Jewish voters and other pro-Israel Americans that supporting Israel requires abandoning the Democratic Party.
But I have a message for Republicans who genuinely care about Israel.
When you falsely portray the entire Democratic Party as anti-Israel, you’re not helping Israel. You’re damaging Israel!
You’re reinforcing the DSA strategy.
You’re doing it for partisan political advantage. But what you are portraying is having a negative effect on Israel.
Israel’s security is too important to become a Republican campaign slogan. How dare you!
For generations, bipartisan American support has been one of Israel’s greatest strategic strengths.
Democratic and Republican administrations have supported Israel’s security. Democratic and Republican members of Congress have helped maintain that relationship.
If Republicans convince Americans that supporting Israel is exclusively a Republican position, you are weakening that bipartisan foundation. Just what the DSA wants?
Israel needs friends in both political parties!
The overwhelming majority of Democratic House members were not elected as DSA candidates.
Republicans who care about Israel should stop giving the DSA more political importance than its numbers justify.
Donny Deutsch Makes an Important Point
On November 4, I watched a video posted by Donny Deutsch, the longtime advertising executive and political commentator, discussing his appearance on MSNOW’s Morning Joe.
Joe Scarborough had asked whether Deutsch would be comfortable with President Donald Trump ending American military assistance to Israel.
Deutsch’s answer was unequivocal.
“I’m okay with that.”
His reasoning caught my attention because it’s an argument I’ve been making myself.
Deutsch explained that American military assistance to Israel has become a convenient political talking point for those who blame Israel for America’s domestic problems.
He argued that ending the assistance would take away that talking point.
And he specifically mentioned Michigan’s newly elected Democratic senator, Abdul El-Sayed.
Deutsch challenged the suggestion that American families cannot afford healthcare, education, or other necessities because Washington provides military assistance to Israel.
He’s right!
The United States provides Israel approximately $3.8 billion annually in regular military purchase credits.
That sounds like a substantial amount of money, and it is.
But compared with the enormous American defense budget it’s .035% of .$1.1 trillion,
Ending that assistance will not suddenly provide universal healthcare to Americans.
It will not solve our housing crisis.
It will not make groceries affordable.
It will not explain why America spends a substantially higher percentage of its economy on healthcare than virtually every other developed nation that provides universal healthcare.
Deutsch made another important observation.
Israel can stand on its own.
I’ve been making that argument, too.
Israel has developed one of the world’s most advanced defense industries. It manufactures sophisticated weapons systems, exports military technology, and purchases billions of dollars in American military equipment.
It doesn’t need to remain on American military assistance.
If ending that assistance removes one of the far left’s favorite arguments against Israel, perhaps it’s time to seriously consider that transition.
Donny Deutsch deserves credit for making that argument so clearly on national television.
The issue becomes even more interesting when we examine what Abdul El-Sayed wants next.
Abdul El-Sayed: Is His Agenda Really About Helping Americans?
Throughout his campaign for the United States Senate, Abdul El-Sayed talked about making America more affordable, providing universal healthcare, improving education, and creating greater economic opportunity.
Those are important goals that I and Democrats already embrace.
But much of his campaign rhetoric concerning Israel suggested that American financial assistance to the Jewish state was preventing our government from addressing those domestic needs. Ridicules!
Now President Trump has announced plans to end approximately $3.8 billion in annual military purchase credits for American arms to Israel.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has also discussed moving Israel away from dependence on those grants.
Israel can continue purchasing American weapons without relying on American taxpayers to finance those purchases.
Israel will continue purchasing American military equipment for $30 to $40 billion a year.
So one might expect El-Sayed to welcome the development and concentrate on the domestic agenda he campaigned on.
But according to a November 4 NPR interview, El-Sayed wants to go further.
He wants America to stop selling weapons to Israel.
Stop selling weapons?
Now we’re no longer discussing American financial assistance.
We’re discussing Israel purchasing military equipment from American companies, including purchases financed with Israel’s own money.
American manufacturers make those weapons.
American workers manufacture them.
American businesses benefit from those purchases.
Restricting commercial weapons sales will have negitive consequences for American manufacturing jobs, defense industries, and the strategic relationship between the United States and Israel.
How does preventing those transactions make healthcare more affordable for Americans?
How does it improve education?
How does it lower the cost of groceries?
It doesn’t! It does the opposite.
El-Sayed and his supporters argue that restricting weapons sales is necessary because of Israel’s conduct in Gaza. That is their stated justification, and that argument holds no merits.
But a serious foreign-policy proposal must also consider its consequences for American workers, national security, regional stability, and the defense relationship between the two countries.
And that brings me to a question I’ve been asking throughout El-Sayed’s campaign.
Is his principal political objective improving the lives of Americans, or weakening America’s relationship with Israel?
An October report also quoted a former campaign staffer who claimed El-Sayed wanted a seat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Serving on that committee given his emphasis on Israel throughout the campaign, I believe his domestic-policy agenda will not receive the attention it deserves.
I thought his priority was universal healthcare, affordability and improving the economic lives of Americans.
El-Sayed’s actions in the Senate will tell us whether his domestic promises or his opposition to Israel receive greater attention. His promises reminds me of Trump’s 24 campaign promises?
Two Victory Speeches, Two Very Different Messages
The contrast between Abdul El-Sayed’s victory speech in Michigan and James Talarico’s victory speech in Texas offers another perspective on the future of the Democratic Party.
In an analysis attributed to body-language expert Dr. Lillian Glass, El-Sayed’s speech was characterized as an expression of triumph, anger, and defiance rather than political reconciliation.
Glass contrasted his remarks with Talarico’s more inclusive approach.
And I believe the contrast is worth examining.
Following his historic victory in Texas, Talarico explicitly addressed voters who had opposed him.
“And to the Texans who didn’t vote for me, I will be your senator too.”
That’s the kind of message I want to hear from a newly elected United States senator.
Talarico recognized that winning an election carries a responsibility to represent people who did not support your candidacy.
El-Sayed delivered a very different message.
He used part of his victory celebration to confront AIPAC, revisit grievances against political opponents, and renew his accusations concerning Israel and the war in Gaza.
He celebrated defeating what he described as a powerful political machine.
He also spoke about the criticism he had faced because of his Muslim identity.
Let me be clear.
Religious prejudice has no place in American politics.
El-Sayed had every right to condemn attacks based on his name or religion.
But I am particularly concerned that even after winning, he continued making opposition to Israel such a prominent part of his political message.
He had won the election.
He now had an opportunity to demonstrate that he intended to represent all Michigan residents, including Jewish voters and people who disagreed with him about Israel.
Instead, his remarks offered little reassurance to those concerned about his positions toward the Jewish state.
That is what troubles me.
Winning an election is important. But what a candidate does with that victory tells us something about the kind of leadership we can expect.
The contrast between these two speeches deserves attention as Democratic Leaders consider committee assignments.
America’s Healthcare Problem Is Not Israel
Let’s examine the healthcare numbers.
According to the OECD’s Health at a Glance 2025 report, the United States spends approximately 17.2% of its GDP on healthcare.
Israel spends approximately 7.6%.
Israel provides universal healthcare coverage while spending less than half the share of its economy that America spends and does not insure everyone.
Think about that.
Israel provides universal healthcare.
America spends considerably more, yet millions of Americans remain uninsured or inadequately insured.
Our healthcare problem is not caused by $3.8 billion in annual military assistance to Israel.
It’s caused by the extraordinary costs and structural problems within America’s healthcare system.
If Abdul El-Sayed wants to make healthcare more affordable for Americans, that’s where he should direct his attention! After all he is a Doctor.
If American military assistance to Israel is eliminated, but El-Sayed continues making opposition to Israel a defining feature of his political agenda, I believe voters should ask why.
There is another lesson here.
Israel has accomplished something American liberals and progressives have advocated for generations.
Universal healthcare.
But Israel demonstrates that a country can provide universal healthcare while spending a substantially smaller percentage of its economy on medical services than the United States.
Why not learn from that experience?
Why not examine how Israel organizes healthcare coverage, manages costs, and provides medical services?
Instead of treating Israel primarily as a political target, perhaps American politicians should consider what we can learn from it.
We can support Israel and improve healthcare for Americans. Those objectives are not mutually exclusive.
The DSA’s Obsession With Israel
I’ve written previously about what I believe is the growing influence of extremist anti-Israel ideology within the Democratic Socialists of America.
In my earlier Times of Israel article, “I Call the DSA Corrupted by the Worldwide Jihadist Movement,” I explained my concerns about the organization’s ideological direction.
https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/i-call-the-dsa-corrupted-by-the-worldwide-jihadist-movement/
The DSA presents itself as an organization fighting for universal healthcare, workers’ rights, affordable housing, economic equality, and social justice.
But its opposition to Zionism has also become a prominent part of its political identity.
And I believe that emphasis on Israel threatens to overshadow the very domestic agenda that attracts many Americans to its candidates.
The question I keep asking is why.
Why is Israel such a central target?
Why does an organization supposedly dedicated to improving Americans’ lives devote so much attention to a country thousands of miles away?
And who benefits politically from making opposition to Israel a defining feature of the American left?
Those are questions worth examining.
But one thing is already clear.
The 2026 election demonstrated that Democrats can win without embracing the DSA’s anti-Israel agenda.
The overwhelming majority of Democratic congressional representatives were not elected with the DSA’s endorsement.
The DSA does not own universal healthcare.
It does not own workers’ rights.
It does not own civil rights.
And it certainly does not own the word progressive.
Democrats have championed those causes for generations.
Franklin Roosevelt strengthened organized labor and established Social Security.
Lyndon Johnson signed Medicare, Medicaid, and landmark civil rights legislation.
Barack Obama signed the Affordable Care Act.
These accomplishments didn’t require the Democratic Party to embrace the DSA’s political agenda.
Being liberal, being progressive, being a Democrat, and being a Zionist are not mutually exclusive.
That’s why I created my Facebook group, “We Are Progressive, Liberal, Woke and Pro Israel!”
With more than 13,000 members, our community demonstrates that support for Israel and liberal political values can coexist.
Israel provides universal healthcare, educational opportunities, and protections for LGBTQ+ citizens.
I’ve criticized Benjamin Netanyahu’s policies and violence committed by extremist settlers.
But supporting Israel does not require supporting every Israeli government.
And criticizing an Israeli government does not require opposing the existence of the Jewish state.
The DSA does not own progressive values, and it certainly does not own the Democratic Party.
The DSA Doesn’t Have a Monopoly on Primary Challenges!
The DSA has demonstrated that it knows how to organize, recruit candidates, raise money, and challenge incumbent Democrats in primary elections.
Well, here’s something its newly elected representatives should understand.
Those tactics work both ways!
If these representatives attempt to push legislation that undermines Israel’s security or threatens America’s longstanding relationship with the Jewish state, mainstream Democrats have every right to organize and will PRIMARY THE DSA MEMBERS!.
Those freshman representatives could find themselves facing serious Democratic primary challengers in 2028.
I hope they read this article.
The American people voted for change.
They want affordable healthcare, economic opportunity, responsible government, and a stronger future.
They did not give a small ideological faction a mandate to dictate the direction of the Democratic Party.
And while the DSA celebrates its few election victories, mainstream Democrats should remember that winning primaries in overwhelmingly Democratic districts is not the same as building the broad national coalition necessary to govern America.
That requires reaching beyond ideological allies.
It requires appealing to voters who disagree with us on some issues but share our goals on others.
It requires recognizing that the Democratic Party is a coalition, not a political organization belonging to one ideological faction.
And it requires understanding that support for Israel and support for liberal domestic policies can coexist.
Israel Must Remain a Bipartisan American Priority
I also have a message for Republicans who continue portraying every Democrat as anti-Israel.
You’re not strengthening Israel by driving its Democratic supporters away. You’re weakening the bipartisan support Israel needs!
For decades, Israel has benefited from having friends in both American political parties.
That relationship has survived disagreements between presidents and prime ministers because America’s commitment to Israel has historically extended beyond partisan politics.
I want it to remain that way.
Republicans who genuinely support Israel should recognize that portraying every Democrat as an enemy of the Jewish state is counterproductive.
And Democrats who genuinely support Israel should refuse to abandon their political home simply because a vocal faction within the party opposes Zionism.
I am a lifelong Democrat and a proud Zionist.
I believe in universal healthcare, workers’ rights, civil rights, economic opportunity, and protecting our democracy.
I also believe America’s relationship with Israel should remain strong and bipartisan.
There is no contradiction between those commitments.
We can support Palestinian dignity while defending Israel’s security.
We can criticize Israeli government policies without opposing Israel’s existence.
We can champion universal healthcare and economic justice without adopting the DSA’s foreign-policy positions.
And we can challenge antisemitism without engaging in Islamophobia.
The Democratic Party is much bigger than the DSA.
The DSA has not taken over Congress.
The DSA has not taken over the Democratic Party.
And Republicans who genuinely care about Israel should stop pretending otherwise.
The numbers tell the story!
Stand with Israel. Stand for Peace. Stand for the Future.
