Features
Bygone Winnipeg: A fictitous story based on true events: University of Manitoba Faculty of Medicine 1932-1944
By DAVID TOPPER Call me a witness. I was there and heard almost everything that’s relevant to this story.
Yet, thinking deeper, I guess you could call me a spy – well, at least, some may say that, for there was an element of skulduggery in my employment situation. It was all because of my father, who changed my name when I was born. Of course, we’re all born with a surname, but―
Wait. Let’s first go back to my grandfather, Moshe Levinstein, who was born in Russia, and who as a young man experienced a small pogrom – small in terms of later ones – which was enough to convince him to emigrate as fast as he could. Several people were killed, a house was burned down, and there was a rape – that ‘small’ event drove him to leave Russia, forever. He never looked back, even when Winnipeg, Canada turned out not to be quite the paradise he expected. Because he quickly found that anti-Semitism was endemic.
My father, Solomon Levinstein, while growing up, saw the struggle his parents went through being Jews in a Christian country (with the English majority Protestant, and the minority French Catholic), and he wanted to protect me as best he could when I was born. He wanted me to fit into the social fabric more than he ever could. And since I turned out to be a girl, there were even more barriers on my horizon – ‘closed doors,’ he called it. He told us that he was thinking about all this when I was still in my mother’s womb. You see, he liked to ‘plan ahead,’ which was another of his favourite phrases.
Oh, speaking of being in the womb: my grandmother died when my mother was eight months pregnant with me, and so I was supposed to be named some variation of Minnie Levinstein, as is the Jewish tradition. But since my father was obsessed with my fitting in better than he did, and he also wanted me to get through some otherwise ‘closed doors’ – I was named Mildred Evans. He said Evans and ‘Levins’ rhyme, and so do Millie and Minnie. It was also a nice Aryan-sounding name, “as the Germans would say,” he said.
Mind you, while growing up as Mildred Evans, I nonetheless didn’t hide my Jewishness. Indeed, I often went to synagogue on Saturday/Sabbath. But then, I also often went to church on Sunday and―
Um, I guess I need to explain that. You see, my best friend was Mary O’Brian, which tells you that she was probably Irish Catholic, which she was. Now, here’s my perspective in all of this. I was very precocious and very smart and I read a lot. I liked languages. On weekends I enjoyed Hebrew in the Synagogue and Latin in the Church. Two ancient languages, one dead except for the Christian Mass, and the other kept alive in prayer and Torah study. Plus, you must remember that Latin was still taught in schools at this time; it was part of a Liberal Arts education in the first half of the 20th century. Many universities required High School Latin for entrance to their freshman classes. As well, to me, the Mass was like an opera, with singing and those glorious organ pipes vibrating and echoing throughout the church. Mary and I, by-the-by, went to the beautiful Cathedral in St. Boniface, with the astonishing and huge Rose window. You see, there were no organs in any synagogue. And so, it was not so strange for this Jew to enjoy the Catholic Mass as a musical event. Think of Bach, a devout Lutheran, who wrote his wonderful Mass in B-minor.
Anyway, to me the Mass was a show, and it was free – well not completely free, since the church always passed around a collection basket near the end of the service – a sort of pay-what-may type thing, you could say. I remember that Mary, when I took her to her first synagogue service, was surprised that there was no collection at the end, especially since after the service there was an oneg in the social hall, with food galore. But I digress.
The service of the Mass, to me, was not entirely unfamiliar, since there were many prayers and texts that borrowed passages from what they called The Old Testament: many of the sayings of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and others. “But what about the stuff on Jesus?” you may be asking, eh? Well, you see, I read a lot of history, as I told Mary – and I must say she was shocked when I first told her this; although eventually she (well, sort of) agreed with me – well, I told her that Jesus was not a Christian, but a Jew named Yeshua, and he always was; ‘Jesus’ was the later Latinized name. He had some differences with the Jewish hierarchy at the time, along with problems with the Romans who occupied the Holy Land, so much so that they (the Romans) crucified him. It was after his death that Christianity was born, due in large part to the preaching and writing of a Jew name Saul, whose name was later Latinized to ‘Paul’ after he had a vision of the resurrected Yeshua/Jesus. Saul/Paul made a strong case for rejecting many Jewish practices (such as circumcision), so much so that his sect broke free from its Jewish root. They became known as ‘Christians,’ since Paul preached that Yeshua was the real messiah (or ‘anointed one’), which in Greek is ‘Kristos,’ later Latinized to ‘Christus.’
Mary laughed when I said that therefore you might call the birth of Christianity a Jewish conspiracy. “Oh Millie,” she said. “You’re so smart it sometimes scares me. What is going to happen to you?”
Good question.
So, what did happen to me? Well it helped being smart, that’s for sure. Very smart, indeed. But not pushy. No, not pushy or impudent in any way. Not at all. You see, I was (and still am) happy with less – a lot less than I probably could have had. Yes, I lived (and still live) parsimoniously.
Well, I got a university education with excellent grades (as you might expect) but I didn’t go any further, although I could have, and was encouraged to do so. But I saw the university system as a barrier to women. And I was not inclined to fight the system. As I said, I was satisfied with less. While still a student at the University of Manitoba, I got part-time secretarial jobs, since I was a fabulous typist and proof reader. Even before I graduated, I was offered a full-time position as a secretary in the English Department, since their long-time-serving woman was thinking of retiring. And in the end, after graduation, I got the job.
It was the best decision of my life, looking back on it. You see, in this job I could go home at 5pm to my modest house not far from the university and forget about the job until the next morning. In the warmer weather I could walk to and fro; although in the dead of winter I took the short bus ride. After all, it was Winnipeg. And at home I could read whatever I wanted. Play the piano. Do my art work: drawing (pencil and/or pen & ink) and painting (only watercolour). Listen to the radio. And I read as much as I wanted: lots of books, magazines, and newspapers. I got the New York Times Sunday edition in the mail every week; it was a bit late, of course, but there were so many articles of interest that it was a source of almost endless reading throughout the week. For example, I recently came across this quote from the famous Albert Einstein in an article about him: “Perhaps it is due to anti-Semitism that we can preserve ourselves as a race; at least, this is what I believe.” I’ve been thinking a lot lately about this, especially in light of what I am going to tell you later. Incidentally, when I was a student, there were no Jewish professors on the faculty. Even as late as the mid-1940s, there were still only four Jewish professors.
In contrast to my life, my boss’s home life was filled with lectures to prepare, and even on weekends there were papers to mark, exams to compose and later to mark. And so it went. He often told me I was fortunate to be able to start a book and just read it at my leisure, right through if I wished. He confided in me that he seldom had time to read half of what he wanted to. I believe he liked talking to me, since I was smart. He often asked my advice regarding even the content of the texts that I was typing for him. We got along swimmingly, as you might surmise. We had a very good rela―
Okay, before you start fantasizing further, let me stop you. There was nothing beyond our professional relationship. Nothing at all. Throughout the university, in all my jobs – nothing. No flirting, never. I had no affairs in those years in various secretarial positions, if that’s what you’re thinking. And here’s why: I am not attractive. I knew this in High School, and was satisfied with it. Remember, I like a simple life, and I discovered that this unattractive state makes life uncomplicated – or, at least, less complicated than it otherwise might be. I could see among my classmates in school that the (let’s call them) ‘attractive’ girls had a life that was a roller-coaster ride. Up, happy, being gleeful; down, way down, when a guy dumped them. Yes, I saw some girls get really down; had to take pills; some even admitted to hospital. I thought: who needs this crap? I don’t want those ups and downs; I want a straight ride, flat. “Yes, just flat,” as I told Mary. She laughed, “Well that’s not the only thing that’s flat for you, huh”? We both had a good laugh at that. Remember we were best friends, and each could take a joke.
So, I tell you: my so-called ‘unattractiveness’ was a gift. Which I took and ran with, you might say. Today, you see: I wear no make-up, have a simple straight hair-do extending below my ears but not touching my shoulders, wear loose and non-flashy blouses, have only skirts far below my knees, and I wear sensible shoes – namely, flats (oh, that word again). All this ensured that my relationships with the men under whom I worked at the university would remain strictly professional. Let’s put it this way. I always had a good night’s solo sleep, if you know what I mean.
Of course, this is not to say that I never had an intimate relationship with anyone, but rather that it was not with any of my bosses – and I will leave it at that, for this has gone far beyond the original topic. But – and I emphasize this – all this is not a digression, for I very much want you to know about me and my life at the University of Manitoba, so as to put this story into context and to show how and why what I am going to tell you should not only be believed, but also taken seriously.
Further, to set the stage: I got along well with my fellow all-female secretaries and other staff at the university. My plainness was interpreted as a sort of prissiness, which is not true, but they didn’t know that. As Mildred Evans, I was asked what church I went to, and I told them St. Boniface Cathedral, since I did go to it when my friend Mary and I were kids, so strictly speaking my answer was no lie. Although I know their question had a different meaning. (Incidentally, Mary is now married and living in Toronto, raising her four kids.) They then asked why I go all the way to the other city to attend church and I told them it was about the music and the organ. They understood, and asked no more.
Also, due to my modest behaviour, they questioned why I was not a nun, and it led to them jokingly calling me Sister Millie. I said there was no such St. Mildred, although this may not be true, but then what do Protestants know about saints? – since Luther, Calvin, and the others eschewed them, along with the Virgin Mary, from their theology. And speaking of joking: being ‘Sister Millie’ among these Protestants, I was in an opportune position to reprimand them when they occasionally told anti-Semitic jokes or made similar remarks. And I did. As an art-lover, I also took the occasions to lecture them on the destruction of so much art by the Protestants during the Reformation: defacing and burning paintings, smashing statues, destroying stained-glass windows, and more. They knew none of this; it was a shock to them. They were not taught such things in Sunday-school, they said.
And that brings me to the reason for telling you all this in the first place. For, as I began, I said I was a witness, or even a spy. But for what? Well, for what may be called the backroom conversations. The secret disc―
Wait, I’m getting ahead. Uh, let’s start here: After many years with the English Department, I was promoted to being secretary for the new Dean of Medicine, Dr. Warren Matthews. It began for me at end of term in late May 1932. Although the Dean’s term began in September, he occasionally came around during the summer months to bring things (books, files, and such) so that his office was ready in the fall. He got to know me a bit and seemed very pleased and comfortable with me. His wife, Eleanor, even came with him one summer day – I believe, to check me out. She was nicely dressed, looking very Anglo-Saxonish prim and proper, if there is such a thing. When she saw me, she first looked me straight in my eyes and, while she was saying some pleasantries, she panned down my body to my feet and back up to my face, and ended with a self-assured smile on her face. I passed, since I was clearly no threat to her sexuality, whatever there was of it.
I spent the summer getting adjusted to the new office, going through the files and sometimes reorganizing them my way, and changing some things around in the physical space of the office. For one thing, I preferred keeping my office door to the university closed, but with a COME IN sign, when I was there. I didn’t like the constant background noise and chatter, as well as obtrusive eyes walking past an open door. That summer, I also had lots of typing to do both for the new Dean and for others in the Department of Medicine.
By the fall, when the Dean came in for the new term, we could get right to work. And we did. We quickly developed a good working relationship. He was obviously comfortable with me, for he shortly said that I should just call him ‘Warren.’ Interestingly, he liked me keeping my door closed, since he preferred keeping his door open. He said he was a bit claustrophobic, plus he liked to hear my typing – it had a musical rhythm that he found restful. Importantly, this meant that I was privy to confidential remarks by the Dean and those who ran the administration of the university when they were in his office. In short, I was able to eavesdrop. And eavesdrop I did! And that’s why I’m telling you this.
But this spying came later. The reason I am telling you this is because of an event that took place not long after he got settled into his new office. I can still remember the day. It was first thing in the morning, and after the “how are you” etc., he told me to look at the records of students admitted to the Medical School in terms of their ethnic origin, particularly noting how many of them were Jews. “We already have too many Jews, Millie,” he said. It was a jolt, and although I’m sure I showed no visible signs of my reaction, internally I was shaken. So much so that I almost blew my cover. Yes, even as Mildred Evans, Sister Millie, it―
Well, it’s hard to explain. I was tempted, of course, to ask why, … but, of course, I didn’t. “I’ll get to it right away, Warren,” was the best thing I could say at the time, and I turned away walking toward a filing cabinet, as any loyal Anglo-Saxon secretary would do, but with shaking hands that I hid from my boss.
I found that on the application form there was a line for ‘racial origin,’ and so I was able to do my job. I discovered that throughout the 1920s there were usually about 64 students per year admitted, with 18-25% being Jewish. Other ethnic groups also came – Ukrainian, Polish, German, and so forth, but in smaller percentages. Most, not surprisingly, were Anglo-Saxon – good English stock, according to Warren. When I presented my finding to him, I added another category, and I prefaced it by saying that I hoped he didn’t think I was being impudent in doing so. It was the number of women admitted, which was very low – often none, sometimes one or two. Warren smiled and said it was fine for me to be “conscious of my sex” and he blushed after he said it. I think hearing himself saying the word ‘sex’ out-loud to me, well, it jolted him – the way, on the previous day, his word ‘Jews’ jolted me.
Subsequently, my eavesdropping elicited more examples of anti-Semitism endemic to the faculty, as he chatted in his office with other administrators, keeping his door open. They all agreed. “Too many pushy Jews.” “Since they invariably get high grades in school, if we don’t put a lid on the enrolment, soon they will all be Jews.” “If we don’t do something now, well Jews will take over the faculty.” “First the Jews and then Ukrainians or Poles.” “At least the Frenchies have their own college in St. Boniface.” And so it went – a litany of bigotry, discrimination, and prejudice straight from the mouths of the administrative faculty to the ears of Mildred Evans. At most, a few made mild queries as to the efficacy of it, and the possibility of “aggressive Jewish lawyers” filing a legal case against the practice.
In the end there was a quota system initiated for all incoming classes, keeping the Jewish enrolment low. In 1936, for example, only nine got in. In later years even fewer. Out of 60 or more students, sometimes only four to six were Jewish. Of course, this meant that Anglo-Saxon students with far lower grades than Jewish students were admitted in place of them. And this was for a school to train physicians, dealing with life and death. “Just what we need – dumber doctors,” I told my Jewish friends. You see, I didn’t hide my clandestine information. I told anyone who would listen to me. Unfortunately, where it might make a difference, I got indifference, brought on by fear. Rabbis were afraid to do anything. They went along with the quota rule. “Don’t make waves, things could get worse,” was a standard response. Yes, they went along with the quota system. “Don’t look like a ‘pushy Jew,’ at least we get the ones that we get,” I was told. “Look, honey, be happy with four to six doctors a year,” I was told to my face by a rabbi’s wife. The same thing from the Jewish establishment. The B’nai Brith was afraid to do anything because it might backfire and only make matters worse. Similarly, for the Canadian Jewish Congress, which was reluctant to get involved in this Winnipeg issue. “What wimps,” I told my friends. I did the best I could. I didn’t blow my cover.
For me this thing came to a head in 1943, when the med school again turned down many Jewish and some other ‘ethnic’ students, so as to admit Anglo-Saxon students with (in this case) not only lower grades – but they also admitted some students who didn’t even pass their university exams and thus were required to go to summer school! To me, this was the last straw. The Jewish students’ Avakah Zionist Society got wind of this and began to bring all this out into the open. They eventually got the help of a Jewish lawyer and, yes, a fuss was raised and pressure was put on the Board of the University of Manitoba.
Finally, in 1944, after a dozen years of overt discrimination, the Medical School removed the racial and religious categories in their application. The quota rule finally ended. I celebrated with my Jewish friends. And, yes, Mildred “Prissy” Evans got a little tipsy.
Speaking of celebrating. In 1949, Dr. Warren Matthews was awarded an Honourary Doctor of Laws for his dedicated service to the University. I was invited to a private party for him, but I made up some excuse as to why I couldn’t make it. You see, I was afraid that if I did go, I would not be able to control myself, and proper Mildred Evans, aka Sister Millie, would perform the very unladylike act of making a scene by copiously spitting into the party’s punch bowl.
* * *
Features
The Blackjack Bet Behind the Everyday Phrase Double Down
Imagine sending a terrible pun to someone you fancy. They laugh, so you send another. Soon, the two of you have a running joke, and a friend says you have doubled down on the cheesy approach.
The words sound at home in that exchange. They also fit a chief executive’s plans or a politician’s speech. In each case, someone puts more weight behind a choice they have already made. Whether that sounds charming, sensible or stubborn depends on the choice, and on who is describing it.
How the Phrase Left the Card Table
Double down comes from blackjack, where it names a betting option recorded in print by the late 1940s.
Today, it appears in business talk, political speeches and dating conversations, far beyond any online casino. The gambling connection deserves a reminder: gambling involves financial risk, and anyone who participates should set spending and time limits and seek support if it causes harm.
By 1991, Joseph Epstein was using the expression figuratively in his essay collection A Line Out for a Walk. It offered a way to describe taking a further risk outside gambling.
The meaning continued to broaden. Merriam-Webster includes becoming more determined in a position or undertaking. Dictionary.com describes increasing effort or holding to an opinion, especially under pressure.
Those definitions cover actions as well as arguments. Someone might spend more time developing a promising project, or defend a disputed view more firmly. The words leave room for both.
A Business Reason to Keep Going
Jeff Bezos supplied an example in his 2016 shareholder letter, released in April 2017. Writing about patient experimentation and attention to customers, the Amazon founder advised readers to “double down when you see customer delight”.
In the published letter, that advice sits alongside accepting failures, planting seeds and protecting young ideas. The sequence gives the expression a purpose: allow ideas to develop, notice what customers appreciate, then give those ideas more support.
Here, doubling down sounds considered. A positive response supplies the reason for doing more.
The phrase also does useful work without attaching a figure to the decision. It conveys increased effort while leaving the details to the situation. Picture a team finding that customers value a particular service and deciding to develop it further. The expression gives that decision a sense of confidence.
Put the same decision in a political argument, though, and someone may question the direction.
When Determination Becomes a Criticism
In his January 24, 2012 State of the Union address, Barack Obama described other countries as doubling down on education. The official transcript places the phrase in a discussion of teachers, skills and preparation for future employment.
Education was something to back more strongly. Obama’s wording gave added effort an approving tone.
Later that year, Bill Clinton used the expression against an opposing economic approach. His prepared remarks for the Democratic National Convention included “double down on trickle-down”, a line whose repeated sounds helped carry the criticism.
The contrast is revealing. Obama presented greater commitment as desirable; Clinton made it part of his objection. Both used the expression to describe pressing further along an existing path.
That difference helps explain why the phrase works in news and commentary. It can describe what someone is doing while also suggesting how the speaker feels about it. The judgement comes through the surrounding words, something readers can recognise in personal conversations too.
What It Sounds Like in Dating
Bumble brings the expression into familiar dating territory in its guidance for people recovering after ghosting. It encourages readers to double down on self-care, directing their energy towards their own wellbeing.
Psychologist Cheryl Harasymchuk uses it differently in an article published by Carleton University. Discussing positive relationship experiences, she gives the example of a couple following an enjoyable date night with more opportunities to spend time together.
These are gentler uses than Clinton’s political jab. One concerns looking after yourself; the other concerns making room for something you enjoy as a couple. Both give stronger effort an everyday, recognisable purpose.
They also show why the words following double down matter. Self-care, education and a disputed policy lead the reader towards different judgements about persistence.
Back in that imaginary message exchange, another awful pun might be welcome because both people are enjoying the joke. The shared response makes continuing it feel playful and personal.
That brings the expression back to ordinary conversation. Double down tells us that someone is committing more strongly. The rest of the story tells us what to make of it.
Features
When a Partner’s Betting Becomes a Relationship Talking Point
You sit down to work out next month’s bills and realise you have different ideas about what is available to spend. One of you has been counting on a contribution to savings. The other assumed there was room for personal purchases. Suddenly, the conversation is about expectations as much as money.
That is often a useful place to start. Explaining what has worried you, and asking how your partner sees it, gives you something specific to work through together.
When Spending Starts Affecting Shared Plans
A habit becomes worth discussing when it affects plans or responsibilities you share. Perhaps a bill went unpaid, money was moved from savings or an activity has begun taking up time you usually spend together.
Habits such as online betting can come into that conversation through their effect on household finances, time and trust.
Start with one specific example that explains your concern. A missed payment and its consequences give you a clearer starting point than a broad judgment about someone’s spending.
Find Out What Money Means to Each of You
The numbers tell part of the story. Family experiences, financial worries and personal goals also shape how people spend and save.
Someone who grew up around financial uncertainty may feel reassured by having money set aside. Their partner may value being able to make personal purchases independently. Understanding those priorities helps explain why the same expense can produce different reactions.
Utah State University Extension’s guidance on discussing finances recommends talking about money experiences, fears and goals alongside practical plans. It also emphasizes honesty about purchases and debts, so each partner understands the commitments behind shared decisions.
Ask how money was handled in each person’s family, what feels stressful now and what you both want to save toward. From there, you can discuss the expectations affecting today’s decisions: which money is committed, what remains for personal use and which purchases need a conversation first.
Choose Your Moment, Then Be Specific
Once you know what you want to raise, find a private time when you can both pay attention. Keep the first discussion focused on one concern.
Explain what happened and how it affected you. If money moved out of savings, describe the purchase or payment you had expected it to cover. If a bill was missed, explain the worry that caused about the next one.
Then ask what happened. Allow time for an answer, and check that you have understood it before suggesting what to do.
The answer may bring up embarrassment, pressure or difficulty managing a habit. Give those feelings room while keeping the original concern in view. You can care about your partner’s experience and be clear about the effect on you.
Aim to leave with a better understanding of the situation and a practical next step.
Make an Agreement You Can Both Follow
Start with the next bill or other immediate expense. Decide who will pay it, when the money will be available and what each person will contribute.
Then look at spending decisions that affect you both. You might agree to discuss purchases above a chosen amount, or any use of money set aside for a shared goal.
The Financial Consumer Agency of Canada describes several ways couples can handle their finances, including separate accounts, pooled money or a household account alongside personal accounts. Whichever arrangement you choose, you still need to agree on contributions, payment dates and what happens if income changes.
Set a date to see how the agreement is working. Review the payments and discuss anything that proved difficult.
Get Support When the Same Concerns Return
If these patterns keep returning after an agreement is in place, professional support can help. Counselling can work through financial strain, hurt feelings and trust.
The concerned partner can seek help too, including advice about managing shared financial responsibilities and their own distress. Where threats or violence are present, get professional advice before raising financial limits.
In Ontario, ConnexOntario offers free, confidential information and help finding mental health, addiction and gambling services. Partners and family members can contact it for themselves or someone they care about. The service is available 24/7, call 1-866-531-2600, text CONNEX to 247247, or use live chat. Standard message and data rates may apply.
Features
El-Sayed Victory in Michigan is a dangerous moment for American Jews
By HENRY SREBRNIK The election on Nov. 3 to the United States Senate of a man whose links with Palestinian and antizionist radicals is a watershed in American politics. For the first time, with the victory of Dr. Abdul El-Sayed on the Democratic ticket in Michigan, the wall has been breached against voting for an openly antisemitic politician running for a major party. He beat Republican Mike Rogers 52 to 46 per cent.
This has followed the equally disturbing win by Zohran Mamdani as mayor of New York last year, even though that city has the largest population of Jews of any municipality outside Israel. Both results signal a dangerous turn in national politics, especially on the left.
El-Sayed has left many “tells” regarding his extremist views. According to audio from a private campaign strategy call made on March 1, obtained by the Washington Free Beacon and published on March 30, El-Sayed told staffers he wanted to avoid making a public statement about the assassination of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei the previous day by Israel during the Iran war because “there are a lot of people in Dearborn,” whose Muslim population is estimated to make up about 41 per cent of the city’s people, “who are sad” about his death.
The paper also, on Oct. 6, reported that Mohammad Ali Elahi, the imam of the Islamic House of Wisdom in Dearborn Heights, hosted El-Sayed at his mosque on June 24, organized an anti-Israel roundtable for El-Sayed on July 21, and attended a Dearborn fundraiser in August that raised $350,000 for his Senate bid.
Elahi, who claimed after 9/11 that Mossad and Israel perpetrated the terrorist attacks, served as head of the Iranian Navy’s political-ideological office, a post to which he was appointed by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the late Iranian supreme leader. He helped create a research unit for Khomeini’s Martyrs Foundation, which the U.S. government sanctioned in 2007 over its support for Hezbollah and other terrorist groups. Elahi, who immigrated to Dearborn in 1992, has also maintained ties to high-level Iranian political and religious leaders.
His father sits on the board of an Islamic charity that was previously accused of funneling cash to late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein’s regime. Imam Dr. Mohammed El-Sayed is currently a board member of Life for Relief and Development, a charity he’s worked with since at least 2020, according to tax forms. Eman Abdelhadi, El-Sayed’s half-sister, is a University of Chicago associate professor in the Department of Comparative Human Development and prominent anti-Israel activist who frequently and publicly utilizes antisemitic rhetoric that she shares with her 45,000 followers on social media.
Abe Greenwald, the executive editor of Commentary magazine, published by the American Jewish Committee, on Oct. 20, in “The Disavowal Game,” rhetorically posed the following to El-Sayed:
“Your father-in-law, Tayeb Jukaku, the largest individual donor to your campaign, is a member of the Islamic Society of North America and a founder and board director at the Council on American-Islamic Relations. Both groups are unindicted co-conspirators in the USA v. Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development case, in which Holy Land Foundation leaders were convicted of terrorism-related charges. Federal prosecutors also linked both groups to the Muslim Brotherhood.
“Your half-sister, Eman Abdelhadi, delivered an October 7 ‘blessing’ on Instagram, one year after the Hamas massacre in Israel. ‘I want to say, Allahu Akbar,’ she began. ‘That phrase means God is greater, and it’s an important phrase in the Muslim tradition. It’s one that I’ve been thinking about a lot over the last year, because it’s a phrase that reminds us that no matter how great the brutality, the oppression, the intensity of what we’re going through, the horizon of justice is just around the corner.’ There was not a word about October 7 itself or the slaughter of Jews. But she urged viewers to ‘grieve all the siblings that we’ve lost over the past year.’
“According to social media posts from this same half-sister, your mother, Fatten Fathy Elkomy, had been involved in the Muslim Brotherhood, and many other family members continue to be active in the organization. Additionally, your mother worked for the Islamic American Relief Agency, which was designated by the U.S. Treasury Department in 2004 for financially supporting Osama bin Laden and various terrorist organizations.
“Your sister-in-law, Mariam Jukaku, was reportedly placed on a federal terrorism watchlist during the Obama administration. She joined a lawsuit to get her name taken off the list and, despite your claims, did not win.
“Of course, it’s not fair to pass judgment on someone based solely on the sins of his family. Which is why I’ll now turn to you. I’d imagine that it would be traumatic for a non-extremist Muslim to find himself in a family of committed Islamists and terrorist enablers. I’d think you’d make a point of distancing yourself from their extremism. And yet, you speak and act as if you’re in their camp.
“In 2012, you signed a letter of support for Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi, a Muslim Brotherhood leader, urging him to purge the country’s dissenting media and police. You empathized with the terrorist who tried to blow up the Temple Israel Synagogue and day school in March. ‘Hurt people,’ you explained, ‘hurt people.’ You continually refuse to renounce the theocratic Iranian regime. Nor have you said whether Iran or Israel poses a greater threat to the United States. You’ve defended the existence of shariah law in the U.S. You’ve boasted, to select audiences, that you’re actually an Egyptian immigrant. Why? Your friend Hasan Piker is a supporter of every Brotherhood terrorist offshoot I can think of. And you’ve not denounced him either.”
The charity, the Islamic American Relief Agency, founded in 1985, raised at least $20 million and funded social services for children in Africa and Asia, according to federal records. It closed in 2024 after the terrorism designation. Its executive director, Mubarak Hamed, was sentenced in 2012 to nearly five years in prison.
Greenwald’s reference to Temple Israel, located in heavily-Jewish West Bloomfield, a suburb of Detroit, concerned the terrorist attack on March 12 by Hezbollah supporter Ayman Ghazali, who drove a truck laden with explosives and accelerants into the reinforced doors of Michigan’s largest synagogue, and opened fire on the temple’s security personnel. Ghazali was killed before he could detonate his vehicular IED inside the building in which 140 Jewish preschoolers were in attendance at the time of the attack.
“We can and must condemn the attack on Temple Israel, and we can and must condemn the violence 6,000 miles away,” El-Sayed responded, explaining that just days earlier, the gunman had lost members of his extended family in an Israeli air strike in Lebanon. But he failed to mention that one of those relatives was a Hezbollah commander who managed weapons operations in southern Lebanon.
El-Sayed refused to condemn Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, saying, “It is the responsibility of the people of Iran to decide what their leadership should look like.” In his debate against Rogers, he declined to say whether Israel or Iran posed a greater threat to America.
Federal Election Commission records show that El-Sayed’s campaign collected over $115,000 from officials and leaders affiliated with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). Among the identified donors is CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad, who drew widespread condemnation after publicly stating he was “happy” to see Hamas break out of Gaza on October 7, 2023 and arguing Israel “does not have the right to self-defence” as an occupying power.
The Democratic Senate hopeful told the SenseSustainability podcast in a 2011 interview that he draws inspiration from Tariq Ramadan, the grandson of the Muslim Brotherhood founder, the Egyptian imam and educator Hassan Al-Banna. Ramadan is the son of Said Ramadan, who was married to Al-Banna’s daughter and emerged as a top Brotherhood leader in the wake of al-Banna’s death.
El-Sayed also appears to have a personal relationship with Mohamed Soltan, the son of a senior Muslim Brotherhood official. In a since-deleted Substack post, he called Soltan, who was jailed in Egypt for his role in a series of 2013 protests aimed at reinstating Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated president, Mohamed Morsi, his “friend,” the Washington Free Beacon reported Oct. 13.
Over the weekend of Oct. 24-25, an independent left-wing political action committee entered the Michigan Senate race on behalf of El-Sayed. Rebellion PAC released a web ad that featured a couple at the grocery store discussing how they could not afford bananas and eggs because “we have to set that money aside for killing Palestinians.” El-Sayed refused to criticize it. So important is his antisemitic worldview that he was even willing to potentially lose a winnable seat rather than simply admit that, no, the “Zionist lobby” isn’t responsible for the rise in the cost of bananas, or skyrocketing healthcare premiums. Not every domestic problem has a single, sinister foreign architect. It led to a break with centrist members of the Democratic Party, including Congresswoman Haley Stevens, the woman he defeated in the Aug. 4 primary.
He attacked her for being a puppet of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). In August El-Sayed had taunted AIPAC at a virtual town hall. “I’m happy to burn your money for you,” he remarked. “And then we can get on to the business of governing and asking whether or not our foreign policy ought to be dictated to us by the interests of a foreign government.” Just two days before the election, she announced she was endorsing Rogers, after she was uninvited to a joint event with El-Sayed.
In the primary, Stevens had defeated El-Sayed in Wayne County, which includes Detroit, and neighbouring Oakland County, drawing support from Black and Jewish voters who are important parts of the Democratic coalition.
The Democratic party leaders, for their part, have shamefully struck a bargain with the left and put up with anything to win elections. Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, who is Jewish, called her move a “despicable betrayal.”
One reason El-Sayed didn’t confront the ad might be because Rebellion PAC is run by an ally of the campaign, Cenk Uygur, a podcaster obsessed with the perfidy of Israel and its supporters in America. El-Sayed appeared with Uygur in September at a conference sponsored by the Islamic Society of North America. Uygur’s nephew is the anti-American streamer Hasan Piker, who campaigned with El-Sayed in the final weeks of his primary campaign. Piker has argued that the authors of the October 7 massacre, Hamas, are morally superior to Israel, and stated that his favourite flag was that of Hezbollah, the Lebanese terrorist group. He has also suggested that America “deserved” the attacks on 9/11 in 2001. Tucker Carlson, the influential far-right podcaster, also took to defending El-Sayed. They find common ground in their shared criticism of interventionist foreign policy and the Israeli government.
In office, El-Sayed will obsess over the Jewish state. He will prioritize ending the U.S. relationship with Israel — indeed, he’s already indicated he wants a seat on the Foreign Relations Committee — and anytime someone has a positive thing to say about it, he will “remind” people of its “genocide” in Gaza.
Michigan has nearly twice as many Muslims as Jews. If current trends continue, similar ratios will become increasingly common throughout the country. How will that change America, and the place of Jews in it? As in most of the world, demography is destiny.
Henry Srebrnik is a professor emeritus of political science at the University of Prince Edward Island.
