#dmfi

Josh Paul and Robert McDonald for Zeteo (05.03.2026):

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.

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.

To ensure that turning point didn’t come, the pro-Israel establishment realized it needed a new architecture. Despite its name, AIPAC had never created a political action committee to directly give money to candidates. Instead, donors close to the organization established their own PACs, whose giving reflected AIPAC’s priorities. For decades, the activists who ran these affiliated groups had been holding fundraisers in their living rooms and boardrooms. But individuals can donate only $5,000 per election cycle to a traditional PAC and another $5,800 directly to a candidate, and over the years, new fundraising techniques eclipsed this old way of playing the game. The first innovation was the internet, which allowed candidates with passionate followings, like Howard Dean and Bernie Sanders, to raise vast sums through small online donations. The second was Citizens United, the 2010 Supreme Court decision that permitted the creation of the “Super PAC,” a new kind of political action committee that could accept unlimited donations so long as it spent them on “independent expenditures” that weren’t coordinated with the campaigns it promoted. Over the last decade, these two new methods—one based on large numbers of small donors, the other based on small numbers of extremely large donors—transformed campaign fundraising. AIPAC was employing neither.

All that began to change in January 2019, the month the Squad arrived in Washington. Over the years, AIPAC’s confrontations with Barack Obama and warm relations with Benjamin Netanyahu and the Trump administration had damaged its standing among Democrats. But a group of donors and strategists with close ties to AIPAC provided a solution: the creation of DMFI, which aimed to rebrand unconditional support for Israel as a Democratic cause. More importantly, DMFI ran a Super PAC, which gave pro-Israel donors a way to write $100,000 or even $1 million checks, which could then be funneled into congressional campaigns. Two months later, AIPAC created Pro-Israel America, which aimed to raise small donations from its members online.

The new institutions faced an early setback. In the summer of 2020, DMFI spent close to $2 million in independent expenditures to defend Eliot Engel, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and an influential AIPAC ally, against a primary challenge from Jamaal Bowman, a Bronx middle school principal who criticized the use of US aid to detain Palestinian children and garnered an endorsement from Ocasio-Cortez. Pro-Israel America chipped in another $228,000, making it the largest direct contributor to Engel’s campaign. It wasn’t enough. Boosted by spending from the progressive groups Justice Democrats and the Working Families Party, Bowman defeated Engel by almost 15 points.

But the new pro-Israel groups proved their worth the following year by toppling Nina Turner in Ohio. Their victory opened the floodgates: Six months later, AIPAC created its own Super PAC. This year, another AIPAC ally, South Carolina political commentator Bakari Sellers, announced plans to create a PAC largely aimed at defeating Palestinian American Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib. In New York, a billionaire investor, Daniel Loeb, has created an organization, the New York Solidarity Network, to boost pro-Israel candidates there.

What AIPAC and its allies have recognized is not just the power of immense campaign spending, but the power of immense campaign spending in open Democratic congressional primaries. Because partisan polarization has reduced the number of swing districts, primaries now matter more. In a district like Ohio’s 11th, which favored Biden by 60 points, the only way to defeat Turner was to stop her from winning the Democratic nomination. Open primaries are particularly important because, once elected, incumbents are hard to dislodge. And the combination of congressional redistricting and Democratic retirements has created more open seats than usual this year. Campaign spending in House primaries is also effective because voters know less about the candidates than they do in a presidential or even senate race, making it easier to mold public opinion. Finally, Democratic primaries offer pro-Israel groups an advantage. Many progressive donors are reluctant to match AIPAC’s spending in races that pit Democrats against each other, because they want to husband their money for general election campaigns against Republicans. AIPAC feels no similar reluctance. It doesn’t care if Republicans win elections. It simply wants to ensure that Democrats who support Palestinian rights lose.

The denial of the Nakba has become a virtual sine qua non for pro-Israel advocacy and propaganda. It is not necessary for Zionism; acknowledging the genocide of native people in the Western hemisphere has not led to the destruction of the US, Canada, or Australia. But because of the anti-Arab and anti-Palestinian hate that has, from the start, been such an integral part of the ideology of…

In the closing days of the 2020 general election, a PAC associated with Democratic Majority for Israel spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in ads warning Americans about the dangers of electing a wealthy, out-of-touch New Yorker. Those ads were not geared toward undecided voters in swing states who were considering a vote for Donald Trump. Instead, DMFI was trying to reach Democrats in a dark-blue district in California who were preparing to vote in a low-profile race between two Democratic congressional candidates.

Their target was Jewish progressive Sara Jacobs. A local anti-poverty activist and heir of the Qualcomm fortune, Jacobs was locked in a contentious fight for California’s 53rd Congressional District against fellow progressive and San Diego City Council president Georgette Gómez, a queer Latina and daughter of working-class immigrants. Both supported most cornerstone progressive issues such as Medicare for All and the Green New Deal.

The key difference between the two candidates — the difference that brought almost half a million dollars in spending from DMFI — lay in their stances on Israel. In a December 2019 interview with San Diego Jewish World, Jacobs spoke passionately about using U.S. policy and its assistance to Israel to promote peace with Palestinians. She also criticized a number of efforts — such as legislation condemning the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement and Trump’s decision to move the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem — that hard-line pro-Israel organizations supported.

“The window for two states may be closing faster than we would like for logistical reasons,” she said. “I think all U.S. assistance needs to be viewed through the lens of ‘does it move things closer to peace?’”

In a series of events that progressive Jewish activists warn is becoming increasingly malicious and predictable, Jacobs’s discussion of her Jewish identity and pro-peace views activated a wave of outside attacks from organizations dedicated to preserving Israel’s brutal status quo. The signal to target Jacobs went out shortly after she finished first in the March 2020 primary. (In California, all candidates, regardless of party, run in a single primary, and the top two vote-getters advance to the general election.)

The following month, DMFI rolled out its endorsement of Gómez in a story with friendly outlet Jewish Insider, which also highlighted the candidate’s newfound support from two former presidents of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. The article argued with scant evidence that Gómez was a staunch and consistent advocate of Israel with deep ties to local Jewish communities. But before the general election, Gómez had seldom made public statements on the subject — an omission the publication neglected to address. Gómez argued that her endorsements from progressive groups like Justice Democrats did not mean that she agreed with their criticisms of Israeli policies. Justice Democrats, which had raised over $18,000 for Gómez’s campaign, suspended its fundraising in the race following the article’s publication.

DMFI more than made up the difference. In the course of a few months, its PAC spent nearly half a million dollars on the race, mostly to purchase negative ads attacking Jacobs. The underlying critique — that Jacobs’s fortune and privileged life put her out of touch with the needs of ordinary Americans — is well within the bounds of normal political discourse. But the imagery and language employed by many of the ads are reminiscent of common antisemitic tropes, and the group’s decision to highlight Jacobs’s wealthy background flew in the face of its ongoing support for several corporate-friendly candidates.

One widely distributed ad consists of panorama shots of skyscrapers and monuments in New York and Washington, D.C., flashes of the Wall Street sign, and closeups of Jacobs’s face. The narrator criticizes the candidate, a San Diego native, for having lived in New York and D.C., and for owning substantial stock holdings in large corporations. The caption declares that Jacobs “doesn’t share our views,” though the ad does not criticize any of her policy positions.

In an email exchange with The Intercept, DMFI spokesperson Rachel Rosen denied characterizations of the ads as antisemitic. “Discussions of residency in states and congressional districts are fairly common in campaigns, including in your publication,” she said. She did not address the other objectionable elements of the advertisements, and she did not reply to multiple requests to elaborate on what steps DMFI takes to make sure its advertising, the vast majority of which has targeted progressive Jews and people of color, does not incite violence or utilize racial or ethnic stereotypes.

DMFI’s campaign against Jacobs ultimately flopped. The hundreds of thousands of dollars in questionable negative ads that they financed proved to be no match for the millions that Jacobs and her family poured into her campaign. Despite its loss, DMFI continued to refine the candidate recruitment process that they pioneered with Gómez. Nine months and $2 million later, the group’s persistence was vindicated in Ohio. Its preferred candidate for the 11th District, Shontel Brown, overcame a large deficit in early polling to defeat Nina Turner.

Following DMFI’s success, AIPAC launched a PAC of its own — AIPAC PAC — as well as a super PAC — United Democracy Project — at the end of 2021. In February, yet another PAC with ties with AIPAC and DMFI was launched called the Mainstream Democrats PAC. Taken together, these organizations appear poised to make every competitive Democratic primary this cycle into a multimillion-dollar affair. And leaders connected to these groups have moved from flirting with antisemitic tropes to using white nationalist rhetoric to criticize the progressive Jews and women of color who most of the spending is set to oppose.

The Intercept interviewed over a dozen progressive Jewish activists across multiple organizations about the stakes of the 2022 primaries. All expressed some level of alarm about the surge in negative political spending from AIPAC, DMFI, and their affiliates. Most emphasized that DMFI and AIPAC share a similar network of donors and operatives who seek to flatten the diversity of opinion that American Jews have on Israel. While some expressed hope that the push was evidence that Jewish progressives are succeeding at shifting the Overton window on Israel policy, others warned that it posed a serious and immediate threat to the political power and physical safety of progressive Jews and women of color who have fought to make a place for themselves in the Democratic Party.

When asked to comment on the concerns raised by Jewish progressives in this article, AIPAC spokesperson Marshall Wittmann did not deny that a disproportionate amount of his organization’s spending has been directed at progressive Jews and women of color, but he emphasized that support or opposition for candidates is “exclusively based on the candidate’s views on the U.S.-Israel relationship.” He also pointed to a number of candidates of color who identify as progressive and have received AIPAC support, including several members of House Democratic leadership and the Congressional Black Caucus.

Rosen, the spokesperson for DMFI, also pointed to candidates from underrepresented backgrounds her organization supports but did not directly respond to a recounting of the concerns raised by progressive Jews. Instead, she opted to criticize The Intercept and its founding donor, Pierre Omidyar.

Summer Lee quoted in an article by Ryan Grimm in The Intercept. PRIMARY OCCUPATION

As a founding member of the Dog Meat Free Indonesia coalition, we spent many long months investigating the inner-workings of the dog meat trade throughout Indonesia…. As people who do what we do because we care so passionately about animals, doing investigations never gets any easier… It is soul-destroying and heart-breaking work, but is essential in documenting the reality of the trade so that we are best-positioned to fight it.. and ultimately realise our goal – and dream – of ending the dog meat trade, that, in Indonesia alone, results in the unimaginable suffering of an estimated 1 million dogs every year…

Why Hero?

After endless months of witnessing the cruelty and suffering, we had the opportunity to save one dog… A dog we named “Hero”. As a “breed” dog, our undercover investigator took the opportunity to convince the trader that he wanted to take Hero, without blowing his cover. The trader accepted the offer, not realising that to us, Hero was priceless… but not because of his weight on the scales or because of his genetics… Simply because his life matters. To us, Hero has came to symbolise hope for all those we are fighting for, and for those we were unable to save…

Hero is still undergoing intensive therapy at the wonderful Jakarta Animal Aid Network’s veterinary clinic. He cannot walk properly yet because of various injuries.. likely ones that happened many years ago and which is why the owner had neglected him, leaving him to suffer and deteriorate in a cage. But he now has a “walking frame” to help him gain strength and learn to walk again, and he is adored by everyone who meets him.. He loves attention and nuzzles you incessantly for strokes and gentle words.. and he loves his treats!

Hero already has an adopter lined up; who is paying for his ongoing treatment and visits him regularly.. and as soon as Hero has gained a bit more strength, he will be going home… 

Why don’t you save them all?

People often ask us after seeing the footage of the dog meat trade, “why didn’t you save them? How could you just stand there and watch?” They are questions that hurt profoundly… we all do what we do because we care deeply and passionately; and for us, walking away and not being able to save them, goes against all that we are and all that we believe in.. But it is only by documenting the reality of the trade – a trade that is affecting thousands of dogs every day – that we can get the evidence needed to change hearts and minds.. and legislation… and this is what will end the suffering in the end for all dogs that will never be caught by traders and never suffer in slaughterhouses… 

Rescued animals inspire hope and change, conquering hearts and minds... and they help to heal hearts that can sometimes feel broken beyond repair. As a very dear friend of mine says, 'they save us as much as we save them'.

Change is coming in Indonesia and throughout Asia… Never before has the dog meat trade or the consumption of dog meat been questioned the way it is now. People are turning their backs on a trade and a practice that can no longer hide behind a defense of ‘culture’ or ‘tradition’. It is quite simply a question of animal cruelty. 

Earlier this month, the Dog Meat-Free Indonesia coalition launched our first major public awareness campaign at a press conference in Jakarta. We presented the findings of our investigations to the national and international media; and our wonderful Indonesian celebrity ambassadors, Sophia Latjuba and Gamaliel Tapiheru, spoke passionately about their love of dogs and wish for an end to the inherently cruel trade. Their message was clear: “claims of culture and tradition by proponents of the dog meat trade can never be an excuse for cruelty”.

We won’t stop this fight until the last dog slaughterhouse is closed, until never again is a dog’s value weighed on scales, and until the dog meat trade is banished to the history books. But everyone has a role to play in making this a reality. 

So whilst we fight on, for Hero, we have been part of the most amazing moment where all his suffering ended, and that is a victory against this horrific trade.

JAKARTA, Cinews.id – Dog Meat Free Indonesia (DMFI) dan para pecinta hewan menggelar demonstrasi di depan Gedung DPR, Jalan Gatot Subroto, Senayan, Jakarta Pusat, Kamis (21/11/2024). Mereka memprotes usulan penghapusan Rancangan Undang-Undang (RUU) Perdagangan Daging Anjing dan Kucing dari Prolegnas 2025-2029. Usulan tersebut disampaikan anggota Badan Legislasi (Baleg) DPR Firman Soebagyo.…