Features
Access to Canadian records of Nazi war criminals
Introduction: Following upon the huge embarrassment caused not only to the Canadian Government, but to Canada as a whole, by the decision to invite a former member of a Ukrainian Waffen SS unit into the House of Commons where he was applauded as a “war hero,” we asked David Matas, renowned lawyer and expert on the issue of Nazi war criminals who were allowed into Canada following World War II, to write a piece providing an analysis how Canada has failed so badly, not only to prevent Nazis and individuals who cooperated with the Nazi regime, to enter Canada, but also to continually refuse to identify who those individuals were. Following is David Matas’s piece:
Getting access to Canadian Nazi war criminal records has to date been nearly impossible. Efforts to obtain access to relevant files and documents have been constantly frustrated and gone nowhere. The record is this.
On January 12, 2022, B’nai Brith Canada put in a request to Library and Archives Canada for Part II of the Report of the Commission of Inquiry on War Criminals. Part I was public in 1986 when the Commission reported. Part II was confidential.
Part II contained, according to Part I, 822 opinions on individual cases. The Commission recommended that the Government give “urgent attention” to investigating 20 files of alleged Nazi war criminals who might still be living in Canada. The report also recommended further investigation of 218 other possible Nazi war criminals living in Canada.
What happened to the 20 cases which were recommended for urgent attention and the further 218 which were recommended for further investigation? We have no idea. We know that there some cases which went to Court and we have the Court records of those cases. But which of these were part of the 20 or 218, if any, were not disclosed.
As of today, Library and Archives Canada, one year and ten months later, has not responded to the request for Part II, other than to acknowledge receipt and assign the request a file number. B’nai Brith Canada complained on December 5, 2022 to the Office of the Information Commissioner asking the Commissioner to issue an order setting a deadline for Library and Archives Canada to provide B’nai Brith with a copy of the Part II Report. That complaint, as of today, has not been decided.
Also on January 12, 2022, B’nai Brith Canada put in a request to Library and Archives Canada for records relating to investigations of alleged Nazi war criminals of the War Crimes Unit of the Department of Justice and the RCMP. Canada’s Program on Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Eighth Annual Report 2004-2005 stated that, since beginning this work, the Department of Justice had opened and examined over 1,800 files. Who are these people? What was the result of the investigations in these cases?
With that request too, Library and Archives Canada has not responded, other than to acknowledge receipt and assign the request a file number. B’nai Brith Canada complained as well on December 5, 2022 to the Office of the Information Commissioner asking the Commissioner to issue an order setting a deadline for Library and Archives Canada to provide B’nai Brith with copies of the war crimes records. That complaint, as of today, has, like the other complaint, not been decided.
B’nai Brith Canada on March 6, 2023 asked for an unredacted copy of Library and Archives Canada the September, 1986 report prepared by Alti Rodal titled “Nazi War Criminals in Canada: The Historical and Policy Setting from the 1940s to the Present” prepared for the
Commission of Inquiry on War Criminals. Justice Jules Deschênes who headed the Commission of Inquiry on War Criminals recommended release of the report in its entirety. He wrote: “This substantial study no doubt constitutes an outstanding contribution to the knowledge of this particular question and deserves wide distribution.”
Library and Archives Canada provided B’nai Brith Canada on July 5th 2023 a redacted copy of the report, albeit with fewer redactions than there were at the time of the original release of the report. B’nai Brith Canada complained to the Office of the Information Commissioner within 30 days of the refusal to release the unredacted report. That complaint remains undecided.
The 2000 International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance Stockholm Declaration commits the signatories to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the opening of archives in order to ensure that all documents bearing on the Holocaust are available to researchers.” Canada joined the Alliance in 2009.
The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance Monitoring Access to Archives Project recommended in 2017 that governmental archival institutions “release Holocaust related records, irrespective of any personal identifying information or national security classifications”.
The US Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act of 1998 created an interagency war criminals records working group to locate, identify, inventory for declassification and make public all classified Nazi war criminal records. The records subject to the Act include records of the assets of persecuted persons. The Act kept existing exemptions to disclosure in general laws, but required that they be strictly defined, with a presumption against the exemptions.
In addition to general requirements of strict definition and presumption against the exemptions, some of the exemptions were themselves redefined to limit their scope. The exemption from disclosure in favour of privacy is redrafted to become an exemption where there would be “a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy”. The exemption in favour of national security interests is redrafted to become an exemption where disclosure “would clearly and demonstrably damage the national security interests of the United States”. The exemptions in favour foreign relations and diplomatic activities is redrafted to become an exemption where disclosure “would clearly and demonstrably damage” foreign relations or diplomatic activities. The exemption in favour of emergency preparedness plans is redrafted to become an exemption for information that “would seriously and demonstrably impair” those plans.
The records which were disclosed as a result of US Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act give us an insight into why the documents were withheld. One set of documents showed that the US Government had a lot more detailed knowledge of the Holocaust while it was happening. Keeping this information confidential and not acting on it at the time, whether or not it fits arguably within any of the exemptions, does make the US government of the time look bad. There is presumably similar information in currently withheld documentation of other governments.
A second set of documents initially withheld and then disclosed through the US legislation was documents showing that the Government was providing haven for those complicit in Nazi war crimes because of their potential to assist the US in the Cold War. Again this sort of information now withheld may well be found in other archives.
A third set of documents initially withheld and then disclosed because of the legislation were documents which showed the initial unwillingness to bring Nazi war criminals to justice, and the argumentation both for and against within the government. This argumentation we know has been replicated elsewhere.
A fourth set of documents not yet fully available relates to the effectiveness and operational difficulties of Nazi war crimes prosecution efforts once those efforts got going. In Canada, there was a split between the investigation and prosecution efforts, with investigations allocated to the national police, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and prosecution allocated to the Department of Justice. This fragmentation caused a sequence of operational difficulties about which we now have only partial knowledge.
There was also in Canada internal feuding within the Nazi war crimes Justice department unit, arguments whether the unit was too slow and cautious or overly energetic in the pursuit of their efforts. The documents we have now provide only a glimpse of this feuding.
A sixth set of documents not now completely disclosed is efforts of Nazi war crimes prosecution units that were established to obtain access to relevant documents in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. We know that there was a good deal of difficulty in getting that access and that eventually international agreements were negotiated that allowed foreign war crimes units direct access to those archives rather than working through local archivists. Again, this is a story which could be fully told only with release of all relevant documents.
A seventh difficulty is the inclination of archivists, government officials and Parliamentarians to address the difficulties in access to documentation all at once. Yet, attempting to do everything before one does anything is a recipe for doing nothing. Each request is particular, not least in the archival access issues it presents. An effort to resolve all these myriad issues in one fell swoop goes nowhere.
We can see in several countries self-exoneration and blame shifting as a form of Holocaust distortion. Everywhere the Nazis went they relied on local collaboration to identify, locate, detain and murder the Jewish population. What we see now in several countries is an effort to pretend that the locals were innocent, that the only perpetrators were the invading Nazis.
This whitewashing is not confined to the countries invaded. It is an attitude held within the populations which have emigrated from the invaded countries. This attitude had generated opposition to the effort to bring Nazi war criminals to justice and now generates opposition to disclosure of archives about those efforts.
Canadian privacy law allows for the lapse of the right to privacy twenty years after death. However, in the case of Nazi war criminal files, since the names of those, other than those whose cases have gone to court, are not known, neither is their dates of death. While the dates of death are not known to outsiders, they are either known or knowable to archivists.
The situation justifies these recommendations:
1) Obstacles to access to Nazi war criminal records stem from legislation which is general in nature. There needs to be legislation which is specific to Holocaust records and which provides an exception to these general requirements. The legislation needs to encompass Holocaust related archives concerning both perpetrators and victims.
2) National archives need to establish and maintain separate Holocaust records within their general collections.
3) Insofar as there is discretion in current legislation to allow for exceptions to prohibitions to access, that discretion should be exercised in favour of access to Holocaust related records, including Nazi war crimes records.
4) Parliament can obtain documents from Governments which the public can not obtain. Parliament should exercise that power to obtain Holocaust related records.
5) The public interest in access to Nazi war criminal files should prevail over the right to be forgotten.
6) There needs to be active review of Nazi war criminal files both to make publicly available the files where the dates of death are known and the fixed periods after dates of death in privacy legislation have passed, and to determine whether any of those to whom the files relate are still alive or, if dead, the dates of death, where the deaths or dates of death are not known.
Canada, as a member of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, is committed to Holocaust remembrance. To remember the Holocaust, we must remember the victims. We must also not forget their murderers. While the murderers are alive, that means bringing them to justice. Once they are gone, it means providing public access to the record of their atrocities.
During the Holocaust, the murderers were in Europe. After the Holocaust, the murderers scattered around the world to escape justice. Thousands came to Canada. Howard Margolian, a historian with the War Crimes Unit with the Department of Justice, in his book Unauthorized Entry, estimated that 2,000 Nazi war criminals and collaborators entered Canada after World War II.
It is understandable that files about individuals who are still alive are not made accessible to the public unless there is legal action. But once the individual has died, there is no reason why the file could not be made public, no matter what the state of the evidence about the individual. Not doing so amounts to covering up the haven Canada has given to those complicit in Nazi war crimes with a blanket of secrecy.
Philosopher George Santayana wrote: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Yet, we can not remember a past which remains hidden from us. To remember the past we must know the past. Only through public access to Holocaust archives can we learn lessons from those archives.
Learning lessons from the Holocaust is a legacy we can create for the victims, creating meaning from the senseless death of innocents. To learn those lessons, we need access to the archives which can convey them.
The effort at understanding, of learning the lessons from the Holocaust must never stop. For that history to be written, the files of those against whom there is compelling evidence of complicity in Nazi war crimes and who are now dead must be made public.
We have a duty to the victims, not just to remember that they died, but why they died, how they died. The picture of memory we paint must be real and complete. That picture must include the murderers.
Because we will soon be at a stage where the memory of the Holocaust conveyed by survivors will no longer be with us, access to Holocaust archives looms in importance for keeping the memory of the Holocaust alive. Access to Holocaust archives should be a matter of priority to Governments, Parliaments and archival collections.
David Matas is a Winnipeg lawyer and senior honorary counsel to B’nai Brith Canada
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.
