Colorado’s Democratic primary elections were about far more than one congressional district or one governor’s race. They reflected a broader struggle over the Democratic Party’s identity—and nowhere is that struggle more consequential than on support for Israel.
The defeat of Rep. Diana DeGette, a respected progressive with decades of legislative experience, at the hands of Democratic Socialist Melat Kiros illustrates a growing trend that has been building for several election cycles. Increasingly, ideological purity is replacing governing experience as the primary currency in Democratic primaries. Candidates are no longer simply challenged from the left; they are expected to embrace an increasingly rigid worldview on foreign policy, particularly regarding Israel.
This shift should concern Democrats who believe the party’s historic commitment to the U.S.-Israel alliance remains both morally right and strategically necessary.
For generations, support for Israel was one of the few issues that united Democrats across ideological lines. Presidents from Harry Truman to Bill Clinton to Joe Biden recognized Israel not merely as an ally, but as America’s closest democratic partner in the Middle East. That bipartisan consensus helped foster intelligence cooperation, technological innovation, regional stability, and a shared commitment to democratic values.
Today, that consensus is under unprecedented strain.
Organizations that once occupied the political margins now play an increasingly influential role in Democratic primaries, often evaluating candidates through a single litmus test: how critical they are of Israel. Candidates who maintain traditional pro-Israel positions increasingly face well-funded primary challengers backed by activist networks that portray Zionism itself as suspect rather than distinguishing between legitimate criticism of Israeli governments and rejection of Jewish self-determination.
The Colorado race reflected that changing dynamic.
While economic issues and anti-incumbent sentiment clearly fueled Kiros’s campaign, Israel became a defining fault line. Questions surrounding antisemitism after the Boulder attack, outside spending by both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian organizations, and competing narratives about America’s role in the Middle East demonstrated that foreign policy is no longer peripheral in Democratic primaries.
That should concern anyone who values moral clarity in confronting antisemitism.
The Boulder attack was not an abstract political debate. According to federal investigators, the perpetrator explicitly targeted people he believed were Zionists. Whether one supports or opposes any particular Israeli government, violence directed at Jews because of their perceived connection to Israel is antisemitism. Political leaders should have no hesitation in saying so.
Equally troubling is the growing tendency to portray support for Israel as inherently incompatible with progressive values.
Israel is an imperfect democracy—as all democracies are—but it remains the only liberal democracy in the Middle East. Its independent judiciary, free press, vibrant elections, protections for religious minorities, LGBTQ rights, and scientific innovation distinguish it from every authoritarian regime surrounding it. Criticizing Israeli policies is legitimate. Holding Israel to standards applied to no other nation is not.
Democrats also face an electoral question.
Progressive candidates may succeed in heavily Democratic districts where ideological activists dominate low-turnout primaries. But general elections are decided by broader coalitions. Independent voters and moderate Democrats consistently express support for Israel while also favoring humanitarian concern for Palestinians. They are less interested in ideological purity than practical governance.
If the Democratic Party increasingly defines itself through anti-Israel activism, it risks alienating not only Jewish voters but also suburban moderates who remain uncomfortable with rhetoric that questions Israel’s legitimacy rather than its policies.
This debate extends beyond electoral politics.
The United States benefits enormously from its partnership with Israel. Intelligence cooperation saves American lives. Joint military research strengthens both nations’ security. Israeli innovations in medicine, agriculture, cybersecurity, and emergency response improve lives worldwide. The alliance is built not only on shared strategic interests but also on shared democratic values.
Democrats have long argued that America’s global leadership depends on defending democratic allies against authoritarian threats. Israel remains one of those allies.
Colorado’s primaries reveal a Democratic Party at a crossroads. One path embraces coalition-building, principled support for democratic allies, and serious engagement with complex foreign policy challenges. The other increasingly rewards ideological absolutism and treats one of America’s closest allies as a political liability.
The future of Democratic foreign policy—and the durability of bipartisan support for Israel—may well depend on which path ultimately prevails.