Uncategorized
A new version of the famous Holocaust diary is being called ‘Anne Frank pornography’ and getting banned from schools
(JTA) – Among the many books that conservative parents have recently asked their children’s schools to remove is a lushly illustrated version of the most famous Holocaust diary.
The graphic adaptation of Anne Frank’s diary, published in English in 2018, has found itself at the center of a growing number of controversies involving book removals from school libraries. A small number of passionate activists have pushed for the book to be removed from schools in Florida and Texas, calling it “pornography” and even “antisemitic.” Sometimes, they’ve succeeded.
The movement to police children’s literature — particularly graphic novels — on the basis of race, sex and gender has encompassed thousands of different titles, and it has grown to become a potent political force with potential reverberations for the 2024 presidential race. The official who has played one of the biggest roles in enabling parents to challenge school library books, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, is now running for president.
To defenders of the illustrated book — including the foundation created in Frank’s memory, historians and Jewish groups — the inclusion of Anne Frank’s diary among the list of banned books is a sign that the movement is bigoted and misguided.
Proponents of removing the book from schools say the graphic adaptation is essentially an obscene version that distorts Frank’s legacy and aids in “grooming” children. Even some Jewish parents and at least one Jewish lawmaker have objected to the book’s presence in schools.
“I read the diary of Anne Frank many times as a kid. I don’t remember any of that stuff that they put in that graphic novel,” Florida Rep. Randy Fine told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Calling the adaptation an “Anne Frank pornography book,” Fine continued, “And frankly that graphic novel is antisemitic. To sexualize the diary of Anne Frank in that sort of inappropriate way, it is antisemitic.”
Here is what you need to know about the book, the criticism it’s facing and the context that has made it a flashpoint in a deepening culture war.
What is ‘Anne Frank’s Diary: The Graphic Adaptation’?
Published in 2018, “Anne Frank’s Diary: The Graphic Adaptation” is a new, abridged version of Frank’s famous diary presented in comic-book format. The project was authorized by the Anne Frank Fonds, the Switzerland-based foundation started by Anne’s father Otto Frank, which controls the copyright to the diary Otto rescued after he survived the Holocaust. Anne herself perished in the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp after hiding out for most of the war with her family in an Amsterdam annex.
The Oscar-nominated Israeli filmmaker Ari Folman, together with illustrator David Polonsky, put the new book together. It was intended as a companion piece to the 2021 animated film “Where Is Anne Frank,” which Folman directed.
While the film tells the fanciful story of Anne’s imaginary friend Kitty coming to life and wandering through modern-day Amsterdam, the book is a straightforward, though heavily truncated, rendition of Anne’s original diary. All of the entries it reproduces are taken from her original text, and dialogue between the characters in the annex is based on Anne’s own recollections of their conversations. Some of its supporters resist the label “graphic novel,” which they say implies the story is fictional.
The new book, the foundation says, is not meant to replace Frank’s original diary, first published in Dutch in 1947 as “The Secret Annex” and in English in 1952 as “The Diary of a Young Girl.” That book, along with subsequent editions that restored some passages edited out of the first publication, continues to be published and widely read in dozens of languages.
Why and how is the book being challenged?
A handful of parent activists, the largest “parents’ rights” group in the country and at least one Republican state lawmaker — Fine — have specifically gone after “Anne Frank’s Diary: The Graphic Adaptation” as part of their larger campaign against what they say is obscene and pornographic content in schools. After a few isolated incidents of parental opposition to the book over the last year, their efforts have gained steam in recent months.
Organized by members of “parents’ rights” groups such as Moms for Liberty and No Left Turn in Education, parents nationwide have brought challenges against thousands of books in school libraries, the vast majority of which deal with topics of race, gender and sexuality. This movement began as parents organized to oppose COVID-19 mask mandates in public schools, and picked up steam in the aftermath of the 2020 racial justice protests following George Floyd’s murder, as well as recent political controversies involving LGBTQ-focused issues such as medical procedures for trans children.
The groups operate under the presumption that their children’s educators and librarians might be trying to sneak leftist viewpoints (including what they call “critical race theory” and “gender ideology”) into the classroom, or even that they are “grooming” their children.
Increasingly, such parents have trained this focus on books, and have become particularly sensitive to any literary depictions of sex and/or LGBTQ identity — particularly in graphic or comic-book format. Some of the most-banned books in schools across the country are graphic novels and memoirs with LGBTQ themes, including “Gender Queer” and “Fun Home.”
“People are just so uncomfortable with the idea of seeing anything represented visually,” said Kasey Meehan, director of the Freedom to Read program at the literary free-speech activist group PEN America. “Time and time again, when graphic novels are taken, an image is pulled out of context or an image is held up and declared as porn.”
Florida has emerged as a frontier for this movement under the leadership of DeSantis, who is a Republican. Under new laws he championed, educators can face felony charges for making obscene material accessible to students; the state also has a new law, dubbed “Don’t Say Gay” by its critics, that prohibits any classroom instruction on sexual identity or orientation in elementary and middle school, and limits it in high school.
Why are parents complaining specifically about the graphic adaptation?
Critics of the book say they are objecting to the small handful of passages in which Anne describes sexual matters. In one, she discusses a time she asked a female friend if they could show each other their breasts, but was rebuffed. (“If only I had a girlfriend,” she muses.) In another, she describes clinical details of her own vagina.
These passages are Anne’s own writing, and were part of her actual diary. Folman and Polonsky reproduce them in the book and show a full-page illustration showing her wandering through a garden of female nude statues in the Greco-Roman tradition.
This illustration, which is presented as coming from Anne’s imagination, has garnered the most intense blowback from parents. In Facebook groups devoted to book challenges, some members have shared screenshots of the page as evidence of the adaptation’s obscene qualities, questioning why any parent would want their child to read it.
Some people challenging the book have offered other explanations. Tiffany Justice, a co-founder of Moms For Liberty whose Florida district has removed the book, told JTA that she was troubled by the fact that the adaptation only replicates a small percentage of the original diary, while leaving out what she believed to be crucial context: the original epilogue that shifted from Anne’s first-person narration to a larger study of the victims of the Holocaust. (An afterword does appear in the graphic adaptation.)
Inveighing against current child literacy levels she said are woefully low, Justice was also infuriated by the idea that Frank’s diary needed an illustrated version to begin with.
“Anne wrote the diary when she was 13,” she said. “So the diary is written at a level where children of that age can completely understand it.”
What has happened when parents have challenged the book?
The book first grabbed headlines in August 2022, when administrators at Keller ISD, a public school district in the Dallas-Fort Worth area of Texas, ordered staff to remove it (along with a selection of other books) from their shelves. The book had been challenged by a single parent the previous year, and the school’s new board, backed by right-wing special interest groups, had ordered its review policy for classroom materials to be completely overhauled. Any books that had ever been challenged in the district were to be removed from circulation until the matter had been resolved. Following public outcry, the book was returned to Keller’s shelves a week later.
A second Texas school district, Katy ISD outside Houston, had also placed the book under review during the 2021-22 school year, ultimately determining it was only appropriate for high school students.
The book soon landed on the radar of parent activists in Florida. One Florida school district, Indian River County Schools on the state’s Atlantic coast, ruled in April that the book was “not age-appropriate” at any level of instruction, including high school. A parent there had challenged it, claiming that the book “minimizes the Holocaust.”
After a review, the district agreed with the parent, telling JTA it had determined the book to be “a fictional novel,” “not the real diary of Anne Frank,” and filled with “inappropriate content.” The district superintendent issued a statement backing the ruling, citing Florida’s statewide Holocaust education mandate as a reason why the school should not make the book available to students.
The national leadership of Moms For Liberty issued a statement siding with the district — and emphasizing that Anne Frank’s diary is not itself objectionable.
“There are multiple versions of Anne Frank’s diary of varying age appropriateness available to students,” the statement said. “Only this ONE version was removed.”
Justice, the Moms for Liberty cofounder, is a former board member for Indian River County Schools and still lives in the area. She told JTA she does not like the book either and said its removal was a sign of the system working as it should: School administrators took a parent’s challenge seriously and came to a decision.
“If the superintendent and the school board wanted it there, it would be there,” she said. “If the Holocaust education group in the county had wanted it there — these are Jewish people — had wanted it there, it would be there.”
Another Florida school district, Clay County Public Schools outside Jacksonville, has kept the book restricted from student access for some five months and counting, following a single parental complaint earlier this year. That parent, Bruce Friedman, is Jewish, and has become a leading voice of the broader book challenge movement. He challenged the graphic adaptation along with hundreds of other books in his district that he deemed to be inappropriate for students. “As far as I’m concerned, it’s grooming,” he told JTA about the adaptation.
Facing a backlog of book challenges, Clay County in April altered its challenge policy to make it harder for parents like Friedman to file blanket requests to remove many books at once for broadly defined reasons. But notably, the district retained the pending challenge to “Anne Frank’s Diary: The Graphic Adaptation” even after its policy change. A final decision on the book is still pending.
How are the book’s supporters responding to the criticism?
Activists opposed to the book banning movement and experts on the diary’s publication history say critics of the Anne Frank adaptation are wrong even about the most basic facts of their objections.
First, while the visual format of the graphic adaptation (which incorporates some surreal imagery) arguably lies somewhere between fact and artistic interpretation, and its rendition of the diary is severely abridged, the book did not invent the passages these parents find objectionable, as some have alleged. Those came, word for word, from Frank herself. Both passages were fully restored to her English-language diary beginning with versions published in the 1980s, largely without incident.
A crucial part of the argument against the graphic adaptation is the idea that both of these passages were excised from the initial English-language edition of the diary. Both Friedman and Fine have told JTA they have no recollection of having read the passages with sexual content in their own childhood memories of the diary.
They almost certainly did, said Ruth Franklin, a book critic and author who is writing a book about Frank and her diary to be published next year by Yale University Press. According to Franklin’s research, the very first English-language edition of the diary did indeed include one of the two passages the parents are now objecting to: the part where Anne discusses her attraction to another girl.
Franklin said that, contrary to popular belief, Otto Frank was the one who pushed for the passage to be included in the diary’s first English-language edition after it was excised from the Dutch original. Otto is often portrayed as having been responsible for removing the passage so as to sanitize Anne’s language for a general audience.
Contemporary parents who insist they did not read the passage as children, she said, are “misremembering.”
“If they were to actually go to the library and open up the edition that has been in print since 1952, they would be unhappily surprised to find what’s there,” Franklin said. “It seems inconsistent to me to go after the graphic adaptation and not the diary itself.”
At least one parent has objected to the unabridged text-based version of the diary before. In 2013, a Michigan mom challenged an unabridged edition of the diary, citing the same passages that today’s parents are objecting to in the graphic adaptation. She argued that the unabridged diary was “inappropriate for the middle school,” and tried to push her daughter’s district to swap out the “definitive” edition of the diary for the original version that excised one of the objectionable passages. The parent’s objection made national news, was the subject of much condemnation and was ultimately rejected by the district.
Conditions in schools have changed in the last decade, with parents in multiple states newly empowered to challenge books in their children’s schools. The movement has caught up not only the graphic version of Anne Frank’s diary but a growing number of other titles with Jewish and Holocaust themes.
Meehan of PEN America suggested that the parents who objected to Anne exploring her sexuality were doing so because of the passages’ latent LGBTQ themes, meaning that the text had become an example of “intersectionality,” or representing more than one marginalized group. Some of the book’s opponents, including Justice, have separately attacked the idea of intersectionality.
“When there are multiple themes represented in a book,” Meehan said, “then that book becomes even more a focus of efforts to remove it.”
For the Anne Frank Fonds, the Swiss group that controls the diary and authorized the adaptation, the situation is clear-cut. From across the Atlantic, the group issued a statement responding to challenges of the diary in all its forms: “We consider the book of a 12-year-old girl to be appropriate reading for her peers.”
—
The post A new version of the famous Holocaust diary is being called ‘Anne Frank pornography’ and getting banned from schools appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
AIPAC is the top issue at final primary debate between Stevens and El-Sayed in Michigan
(JTA) — SOUTHFIELD – The two figures standing on the suburban Detroit debate stage vying for the right to battle for Michigan’s rights on Capitol Hill were U.S. Rep. Haley Stevens and former county health official Abdul El-Sayed.
But the dominant topic Monday night wasn’t either of them: it was AIPAC.
In Michigan’s closely watched Democratic Senate primary, the pro-Israel lobby group’s spending for Stevens has smashed its previous records — a fact that has come to loom over nearly every aspect of a swing-state race where rhetoric on Israel has torn the party apart ahead of the Aug. 4 primary.
During the final debate, Stevens repeatedly dodged questions from both El-Sayed and the debate moderator about the specifics of her relationship to AIPAC.
“I have been very clear, consistent and transparent, and I have continued to be,” Stevens said after being pressed a second time about AIPAC’s spending. She then pivoted to praising the large suburban Detroit Jewish community in her congressional district.
“I am deeply proud to represent one of the largest Jewish populations in a congressional district in the country,” she said. “This is a community that I grieve alongside, that I have mourned alongside, and have fought to bring the hostages home. And I’m still looking to get us to long-term peace.”
Asked again by the moderator, Roop Raj, the Detroit Fox 2 evening news anchor, whether AIPAC’s spending would result in her “doing their bidding,” Stevens retorted, “I don’t think there’s much difference between super PACs going in for Abdul and super PACs going in for me.”
El-Sayed, who has made AIPAC’s support of Stevens a cornerstone of his attacks on the campaign trail, continued the theme during the debate.
“They’ve set a record in this race to help elect my opponent because they know that she’ll be a reliable vote,” El-Sayed said. He alluded to her vote against a recent U.S. House amendment to strip U.S. military and other aid to Israel that more than 100 Democrats had supported.
El-Sayed said his opponent has voted “to send your tax dollars to a foreign government that is aiding, arming and abetting the very people who want to foreclose on the possibility of Palestinian self-determination.”
Criticizing some of AIPAC’s ads, including one linking Stevens to former President Barack Obama, who has not made an endorsement in the race, El-Sayed said, “That’s exactly what happens when you stand up and say, ‘Maybe Palestinians should have rights, too.’”
Sources of money were a central topic of the debate even beyond AIPAC. Stevens also came under fire for erroneously claiming she hasn’t accepted funding from a local power utility, while she went after El-Sayed for delaying the release of his tax returns and repeatedly called him a “millionaire.”
But the repeated invoking of the pro-Israel group was a symbol of how toxic the lobbyist’s brand has become to the Democratic electorate in certain races, a shift that has alarmed some Jewish leaders who see darker messaging behind the trend.
It was also a sign of how much of a liability AIPAC’s spending has become to Stevens’ campaign, which many of the state’s Jews view as existential for their communal safety.
Both El-Sayed and Raj repeatedly stated that AIPAC and its affiliates have spent as much as $46 million on Stevens’ behalf — a figure the Jewish Telegraphic Agency could not independently verify. Recent, week-old figures from independent political ad trackers have estimated the figure at closer to $30 million, which would still mark AIPAC’s largest-ever spending in a single campaign. An AIPAC representative did not immediately return a request for comment.
While insisting during the debate that he has “never touched a dime of corporate PAC money,” El-Sayed has received contributions from super PACs — in his case, groups that share a pro-Palestinian agenda.
Those include Fighting for Michigan PAC, which has spent around $2 million on the race, and which Stevens dinged during the debate for being partially funded by El-Sayed’s father-in-law. American Priorities PAC, another pro-Palestinian super PAC, has also spent for him, though its totals have been dwarfed by AIPAC’s spending for Stevens.
Asked by JTA about these super PACs in the spin room after the debate, El-Sayed said they were not “corporate money” and that he, as with all candidates for public office, is legally prohibited from coordinating with super PACs. He added, “Let’s just talk a little about scale here. How much are we being outspent? Twelve to one.”
Stevens offered a slightly more direct answer in the spin room when JTA asked her if she regretted how much the lobbying firm had spent on her behalf.
“I’m proud of my record,” she said, listing various Democratic leaders who have endorsed her.
“I have no regrets fighting for the people of Michigan,” she concluded, “and standing by my values as I do it.”
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post AIPAC is the top issue at final primary debate between Stevens and El-Sayed in Michigan appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Netanyahu to meet Trump with Iran, Gaza and Saudi Arabia on the line
(JTA) — Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is set to meet with U.S. President Donald Trump Tuesday, as the American leader is weighing whether to expand his bombing campaign against Iran or to find a diplomatic resolution regarding the Straits of Hormouz and the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program.
Israel fears that Trump is going to negotiate a premature end to the war without eliminating Iran’s capacity to develop nuclear weapons in the future. Trump has persistently insisted that Iran can’t possess nuclear weapons, but the war and the economic upheaval it has spurred has contributed to Trump’s approval rating hitting record lows in his second term. The poor marks are ringing alarm bells for Republicans ahead of midterm elections that could return Democrats to leadership in at least one chamber of Congress.
Netanyahu and Trump are also at odds over other issues, however, including the recent U.S.-Saudi nuclear deal, the pending sale of F-35 advance fighter jets to Turkey and the extent of Israel’s troop presence in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria.
Netanyahu is coming to the United States to attend the funeral for Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who remained one of Israel’s most unyielding advocates even as its popularity plummeted and was one of the most important Trump associates in pressing for the Iran war. Former Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid, now the opposition leader, will also be at the service at Washington’s National Cathedral on Tuesday.
But while in Washington, Netanyahu will seek to close the widening gaps between himself and Trump over Middle East strategy. In a video statement he released before Monday‘s departure, Netanyahu said, “I am embarking on this mission with one clear goal – to ensure the security, strength and future of our dear State of Israel.”
“We will discuss all the issues on the agenda, first and foremost, Iran,” he said. “Naturally, our goal is to safeguard our security and also to expand the circle of peace around us.”
During the trip, Netanyahu said he would also pay his final respect to Graham, “one of the greatest friends the State of Israel has ever known.”
Israelis are acutely aware of the emerging differences between the allies. “It will not be an easy visit,” former IDF intelligence chief Amos Yadlin told Israel Radio on Monday morning. “There is no doubt that Netanyahu wants the United States to return to war.”
Trump himself spoke on Monday of the discord between himself and Netanyahu, even as he lauded Netanyahu, while speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One, stating that Netanahu had been “great” and that “we did very well together.”
On the plane Trump was quizzed about U.S. plans to sell advanced F-35 fighter jets to Turkey, which Netanyahu has publicly opposed. “Turkey has been a great ally for me,” Trump told reporters, stressing, “No one tells me what we should be selling or not.” He acknowledged that Turkey “is not a big fan” of Israel and Netanyahu.
When it comes to the Saudi civilian nuclear power program that the Trump administration recently completed, Israel has been more circumspect. But it has deep concerns about an agreement that allows for plants with the capacity to enrich uranium. Assisting in the building of those plants had been one of the key incentives former President Joe Biden had used as a means to sway Saudi Arabia to normalize ties with Israel and join the Abraham Accords between Israel and several other Muslim countries.
Trump has since said that U.S. support for a Saudi civilian nuclear program would be contingent on normalization with Israel and that the plants would not be allowed to enrich uranium. But on Monday, he told reporters aboard Air Force One that he hadn’t spoken with Saudi Arabia about the Abraham Accords. Tuesday’s meeting is the first face-to-face encounter between Trump and Netanyahu since the announcement.
The closer Netanyahu appears to Trump and the center of U.S. decision making, the better it is for him domestically ahead of Israel’s Oct. 27 election. Trump has in his second term met with Netanyahu more than any other leader. This will be their eighth such conversation, and the fifth time he has hosted the Israeli leader in the White House.
Tight ties with Netanyahu also plays well for Trump with his evangelical base ahead of the U.S. mid-terms in November, but they run the risk of further alienating the larger American public that opposes the conflict.
Netanyahu’s influence in America had diminished, in part because of how unpopular the war has become in the United States and the role he played spurring it on.
“This is not the same Netanyahu of 2025 or even of February 2026. He is greeted with suspicion,” Yadlin said of the reception he expects for the prime minister in the United States.
Netanyahu last visited Washington in February, where he successfully advocated for the joint Israeli-U.S. military aerial bombing campaign against Iran launched on the 28th of that month.
Tehran retaliated by closing the Strait of Hormuz, the waterway through which 20% of the world’s oil supply is shipped. That step caused crude oil prices to spike in the first quarter of 2026 from $61 a barrel to $118, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Iran allowed the strait to reopen in a limited way after an April ceasefire that was followed by a Memorandum of Understanding with the U.S. in June. The agreement fell apart in early July, with the parties resuming attacks – but without any Israeli military involvement. The United States bombed Iran for 13 consecutive nights, ending on Thursday, even as talks with the Islamic Republic continued.
The United States and Israel in February were initially aligned around their joint goal of destroying Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile program, with Netanyahu also focused on the collapse of the Islamic Republic.
Over the weekend, Trump stressed that the war was still about eliminating Iran’s nuclear program. Last week he spoke about specifically hitting the nuclear facility at Pickaxe mountain.
In an interview with NBC News’ “Meet the Press” on Sunday, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz said the United States was “keeping all options on the table,” but was giving space for talks.
He dismissed media reports that lack of military supplies was part of Trump’s motivation to pause its bombing campaign, stating that the United States had everything it needed militarily.
Waltz warned Iran not to ignore American military threats. Early Monday morning, Trump published a short AI video in which his likeness planted an American flag on an Iranian oil tanker, with a slogan that stated, “it’s our oil tanker now.”
Later in the day, the president told reporters on Air Force One that he was having “good talks” with the Iranians, “so we will see what happens. I think there is a good chance something could happen. If it does, good. If it doesn’t, we go back to doing what we were doing two days ago.”
Yadlin told Israel Radio that at the end of the day, “What interests President Trump is the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.”
The war might have begun in February with a focus on the Iranian regime and its nuclear program, but it will end, Yadlin predicted, with the reopening of the strait and some kind of diplomatic achievement with regard to Iran’s nuclear weapons program.
Israel has watched the U.S.-Iran reengagement warily from the sidelines.
Sima Shine, an Iran expert at the Tel Aviv-based International Institute of Strategic Studies, said that until now, neither Washington nor Tehran had wanted Israel’s involvement in the resumed fighting, fearing that such a step would “widen the scope of the war.”
Maintaining its status as a bilateral conflict makes it easier to return to negotiations, she told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
The United States can better control the battlefield without Israel, which would have its own military agenda and objectives, Shine said. Israel can only enter the war if it is attacked by Iran or invited to do so by the United States, she added.
In an interview with Fox News on Sunday, Netanyahu warned of a forceful response should Iran attack Israel.
Iran has to end its nuclear program, he stressed, saying that the military strikes so far have set the program back but have not eliminated it.
A nuclear-armed Iran is a danger to Israel, the region, the United States and the world, he said, adding, “President Trump and I are both committed to prevent this danger.”
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post Netanyahu to meet Trump with Iran, Gaza and Saudi Arabia on the line appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
In Detroit, pro-Israel Senate candidate Haley Stevens meets a pro-Palestinan El-Sayed supporter
(JTA) — DETROIT — Hours before a big debate showdown with her primary rival, U.S. Rep. Haley Stevens began a routine campaign stop Monday seemingly comfortably in her element.
The Michigan candidate for U.S. Senate walked into The Roost, a cafe and wine shop in the Woodbridge neighborhood, chatting up her record on small businesses with the owner, Jeff Tatum. She gamely made herself a cappuccino, exclaiming with glee that the store used Dial soap like her father’s business had.
She also made a play for party unity. Asked by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency about Jewish Democratic donors who have indicated they would fundraise for Republican candidate Mike Rogers if Stevens lost the primary, she responded, “I’m on the Democratic team. I’m on the Beat Mike Rogers team.”
But things went off-script for Stevens when she sat down with Jai Singletary, director of a local neighborhood improvement association — who revealed, midway through their conversation, that he had already cast his early voting primary ballot for her opponent, former county health director Abdul El-Sayed.
What’s more, Singletary made it clear to Stevens that the candidates’ respective stances on aid to Israel were the deciding factor for him.
“Genocide isn’t a Palestinian issue. We’ve all got to care about this,” Singletary told Stevens, a pro-Israel centrist who has received nearly $30 million in outside spending from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee to date in her primary — the organization’s largest-ever investment in a single race, according to CBS News. He believes, he said, that “our country is directly responsible for peace not being achieved.”
The director of Woodbridge Neighborhood Development and local soccer coach added, “We’ve got to have the money stay here. I don’t think we should be giving any more aid to the State of Israel while they’re committing the atrocities they’re committing in widespread collective punishment.”
The interaction spotlighted two of the biggest questions hanging over Michigan’s closely watched and hard-fought Democratic Senate primary: To what degree are the state’s voters factoring Israel into their decisions, and does the pro-Palestinian sentiment driving El-Sayed’s campaign cross racial lines — including in the Black communities where Stevens has long maintained strong relationships?
Many of the Jews in Michigan who form a major base of support for Stevens have made clear their distrust of El-Sayed, who has questioned whether Israel should exist as a Jewish state. Meanwhile, the state has a large Arab and Muslim voting bloc, and voters here helped propel a 2024 Democratic revolt over Israel’s war in Gaza that helped lead to the party’s current civil war. But the situation is less clear with voters from other groups.
El-Sayed and the insurgent progressive movement he represents have sought to make Israel central to the race and have tried to turn Stevens’ AIPAC support into her biggest liability. But the Stevens campaign has made the calculation that most of the state’s voters — including Detroit’s majority-Black population, with whom she has enjoyed good relations in the past — would rather talk about other things.
Not so, according to Singletary, who is Black. In his own Detroit community, he told JTA, Israel was an important issue.
“It’s connected,” he said, comparing the Israeli-Palestinian state of affairs to Apartheid-era South Africa, adding, “$3.3 billion to the state of Israel, and that’s money that could be helping out here. I think people are now seeing the links.” He told reporters that, though he does not have Palestinian family himself, his own vote was “100% exclusive” based on Israel.
After the campaign left, Singletary told JTA that he had no affiliation with the El-Sayed campaign and had stopped by on an invitation from the store’s owner. He said he would not vote for Rogers in the general election even if Stevens wins and came because he hoped to develop a connection with her in the event she became the nominee.
The issue of whether backers of either candidate across the yawning policy divide would continue to vote for a Democrat in the general if their preferred choice loses has become an emerging question. Last week, Democratic U.S. Rep. Hillary Scholten of Michigan, a Stevens backer, refused to commit to voting for El-Sayed if he wins the primary. Scholten cited the candidate’s campaigning with left-wing streamer Hasan Piker, who has repeatedly said he would “vote” for Hamas over Israel. Her objection, she said, was to his comment that “America deserved 9/11.”
“Abdul El-Sayed is taking us in a direction we don’t want to go as a party,” Scholten told CNN host Jake Tapper.
Stevens’ campaign is also touting her backing from a growing number of establishment Democrats, including, on Friday, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. She and El-Sayed face off Monday evening in their final televised debate before the Aug. 4 primary.
Speaking to Singletary, Stevens smiled and nodded. She name-dropped a Palestinian supporter of hers, and mentioned legislation targeting China that she’s worked on with “my colleague Ro Khanna” — the staunchly pro-Palestinian Democratic congressman from California, who has endorsed El-Sayed. She added that she believes in a two-state solution and has been attacked “by name” by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
She also turned to her staff and excitedly indicated to Singletary: “He voted for Abdul in the primary, and he came here to talk to me.”
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post In Detroit, pro-Israel Senate candidate Haley Stevens meets a pro-Palestinan El-Sayed supporter appeared first on The Forward.
