Uncategorized
AIPAC gets a lot of attention in Michigan Senate primary, but voters say it’s not their top issue
(JTA) — OAK PARK, Mich. – Working as a morning producer for Detroit’s Local 4 television station, Noelle Gray has had a front-row seat to the flood of political advertising in Michigan’s Democratic Senate primary.
Amid the barrage, one thing stood out to her: how much money AIPAC was pouring into the race between U.S. Rep. Haley Stevens, a pro-Israel moderate, and former county health official Abdul El-Sayed, a progressive and staunch Israel critic.
“It concerns me a little bit because it makes me a little leery of foreign interests being infiltrated into the state of Michigan,” said Gray, 27, who on Sunday stopped by her polling place in the Detroit suburb of Oak Park to vote early. “I want to support somebody who is for the state of Michigan. I love Michigan. Born and raised here my entire life, and it worries me on corporate and international interests. Are you really focused on Michiganders?”
Ultimately, Gray said, spending by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s affiliated Super PAC did not drive her vote. She voted for El-Sayed because of her concerns about data centers and immigration enforcement under ICE.
“I would hope putting someone in the position of our Senate will represent our interests, keep us safe, but also protect the people who are here,” Gray said of her decision.
The lobby has become nearly impossible to miss in the race. AIPAC’s super PAC has spent over $30 million to support Stevens’ campaign, toppling its previous records in a bid to prevent one of its most vocal Democratic critics from reaching the Senate.
El-Sayed, who is currently leading Stevens by as much as 16 points in recent polling, has made opposition to the group a defining feature of his campaign, inveighing against AIPAC in the debates ahead of Tuesday’s primary and in his attack ads against Stevens. “AIPAC is perfectly fine with either Congresswoman Stevens or Mike Rogers,” El-Sayed wrote in a post on X earlier this month, referring to the Republican Senate nominee. “If either of them win, Israel wins.”
Polling in Michigan suggests widespread opposition to AIPAC among Democratic voters. A survey conducted earlier this month of 500 likely Michigan Democratic primary voters on behalf of Detroit News/WDIV-TV found that 49% have an unfavorable opinion of AIPAC, while 12% view AIPAC favorably, and 39% were neutral. An April poll conducted by Data for Progress for Zeteo and Drop Site News, both of which frequently criticize Israel, found that 64% of likely Democratic primary voters said they are less likely to support a Senate candidate who receives AIPAC donations.
Josh Pasek, a professor of communication and media and political science at the University of Michigan, said that he did not think the “bulk of voters” in the state were voting primarily based on issues concerning Israel and AIPAC.
“I think most people care a whole lot more about substantive issues,” Pasek said. He added, however, that the issue was particularly important for Jewish and Muslim voters, the populations of which he said were “sizeable” in the state. Michigan is home to more than 240,000 Muslims and roughly 129,000 Jews.
For all the attention AIPAC has commanded in the race, a snapshot of voters participating in early voting Sunday suggested AIPAC’s spending wasn’t the foremost issue shaping their decisions. Even among voters who shared concerns about money in politics, AIPAC was often one of several sources of political spending they cited, alongside issues including affordability and immigration.
Gray was one of dozens of Michiganders who trickled into an early voting center in Oak Park, a diverse suburb with a sizable Orthodox Jewish population on Sunday as campaign signs fluttered in the rain outside. For many of the non-Jewish voters who spoke with the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, other issues outweighed AIPAC when deciding how to vote.
Those included Nicole Haines, a 40-year-old resident of Berkeley, another Detroit suburb in Oakland County, and an El-Sayed voter. She said opposing super PAC spending ranked lower for her than priorities such as women’s rights, affordability and checking President Donald Trump’s power.
Haines said she saw the heavy focus on Israel and AIPAC as a way for candidates to sidestep issues that might harm them in the general election.
“What I think every American cares about is: Can I figure out a way to pay my bills and pursue what makes me happy?,” Haines said. “And so I think [Israel and AIPAC] was an issue that allowed the candidates to keep some distance from talking about direct issues here and potentially, especially in that primary cycle, threatening their own success in the general by having an issue to hold up that almost acts as a foil.”
For Inez Thomas, an Oak Park resident, Israel and AIPAC barely registered as considerations at all. Thomas said she cast her ballot for Stevens because she “is really working on Michigan’s behalf.”
“I haven’t been following Israel,” Thomas said. “I know there’s a war and stuff going over there, but if they’re worried about [Stevens], they need to worry about the current president because he’s the one creating a lot of that. He’s the one that have our military people over there.”
The gap between AIPAC’s prominence in the campaign and its importance to some voters comes as El-Sayed has drawn criticism from some Jewish leaders for his focus on the group.
“Those candidates who are solely talking about AIPAC are failing to see that American voters are voting on a range of issues in this election, most of them have to do with affordability, with the defense of our democracy, with our security, safety and well-being,” said Halie Soifer, the CEO of the Jewish Democratic Council of America.
Soifer also said that she believed the rhetoric carried a more serious risk.
“This is an issue that could potentially even endanger our security by again fanning the flames of antisemitism,” Soifer said. “I really think that at best they’re missing the boat on what voters want to hear about. At worst, they’re repeating what has become a dangerous antisemitic trope.”
Stevens has also criticized her opponent’s focus on AIPAC, writing in a recent post on X, “Everyone in America understands you want to blame all of your problems on Jewish Americans.”
Jessica “Decky” Alexander, the Michigan Jewish Democratic Caucus chair, said she shared some of Stevens’ concerns when it came to El Sayed’s focus on AIPAC.
“Is he blaming corporations or AIPAC for housing prices and what? Because of gas prices? Because there’s a war? Is everything now the Jews’ fault?,” Alexander said. “I mean, I don’t think he thinks that, but I can see how that would be interpreted as such, and it makes me nervous.”
Other Jewish groups have defended scrutiny of AIPAC while cautioning candidates to be precise in how they criticize the group.
Jamie Beran, the CEO of Bend the Arc, a progressive Jewish group, said the scale of the group’s spending and its “anti-progressive political agenda” in Michigan warranted attention, but that it was important to use caution and avoid “antisemitic terms” when critiquing the group. The group has held trainings with candidates, including El-Sayed, to help them stay away from problematic approaches.
“It’s important to be careful not to have a double standard for them,” Beran said. “But I also think that there’s a way that that accusation around it being a double standard or around it being antisemitic to call them out is just another way that they get protected from legitimate critique.”
Eli Williams-Szenes, Bend the Arc’s director of advocacy and political affairs, said the group had had a “productive conversation with the El-Sayed team about best language practices.”.
In the trainings, the group tells participants, “Do not refer to the Israel lobby. Do not refer to Zionists. Don’t talk about the Jews. Be specific,’” Williams-Szenes said. “When people stray into the generalities is where it gets really dangerous.”
Some voters in Oak Park shared El-Sayed’s objections to outside spending.
Sean Lathrop, 36, of Oak Park, said that he had been driven to vote for El-Sayed because he felt it was essential to “get money out of politics.”
But he said that he was less concerned about AIPAC spending than he was spending by DTE Energy, a Detroit-based energy company that has drawn outcry for raising energy prices.
“We want to see politicians be represented by the people, not represented by the corporations,” Lathrop said. “Honestly, DTE bothered me more than AIPAC because we know how big of a problem DTE is, and [Stevens] received $40,000 from DTE.” (DTE’s PAC has donated $35,000 to Stevens’ congressional campaign committee over four election cycles, according to Politifact.)
Seth Resler, 49, of Oak Park, said he voted for El-Sayed and shared his concerns about outside spending in the race.
But he also saw the focus on AIPAC as a product of a primary in which candidates needed to emphasize the issues that separated them.
“When you’re in a primary race, there’s not a lot of difference between the positions of the candidates, so you have to take the issues that are different and magnify them,” Resler said. “I think that’s what happened here.”
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post AIPAC gets a lot of attention in Michigan Senate primary, but voters say it’s not their top issue appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Israeli-Arab influencer behind ‘Nas Daily’: Anti-Zionism is antisemitism
(JTA) — DENVER – Israeli-Arab social media entrepreneur Nuseir Yassin, of the viral vlog “Nas Daily,” said he believes “anti-Zionism is a form of antisemitism” and stressed his commitment to overturning “misguided hate” against Jews, at a conference devoted to the subject this week.
Yassin, 34, was speaking with the Jewish Telegraphic Agency on the sidelines of the conference, hosted by the David Merage Foundation for Confronting Antisemitism. A self-described “village boy” from the Lower Galilee town of Arraba in Israel, he achieved massive success through viral short-form videos that attracted viewers from all over the world. Today he boasts more than 68 million followers across numerous social networks.
Yassin is a Muslim of Palestinian origin, although he said he is not religious. Asked why it was important for a non-Jewish person to participate in a conference about combatting antisemitism, Yassin equated this battle to fighting for his family, noting that “the success of Israel and the Jewish people is also my success as an Israeli citizen.”
“I’m not a fan of the Israeli government, and I’m not here to defend it, just like I’m not a fan of many governments,” Yassin noted, but he asserted that the reaction to the government “is absolutely fueled by antisemitism.”
“I do believe anti-Zionism is a form of antisemitism,” he added.
He said he views Zionism as “the most vanilla thing in the world – a group of people wanting a place to live,” and has therefore concluded that Israel’s detractors “just really don’t like Jews.”
Yassin, who first broke through in 2016, has become increasingly outspoken in recent years about his combined Israeli and Palestinian identity. During the conference, he recalled that he grew up labeling himself Arab-Israeli. After the Hamas attacks of Oct. 7, 2023, he started listing Israeli first and Palestinian second.
“I could not relate to the extremism that I saw, and I wanted to distance myself from it without erasing my identity connected to it,” Yassin said. “I’m not just Israeli because I think it removes a little bit of spice, but I’m also not just Palestinian anymore.”
“A lot of Israeli culture is inside me,” he continued. “I never agree with people. I’m always disagreeable. That’s Israeli. I speak up.”
Yassin noted that he was “the first guy to go study in the United States out of my entire lineage,” graduating from Harvard University in 2014 with a degree in economics and a minor in computer science. Despite having grown up in Israel, Yassin said that Harvard was the place where he made his first Jewish friend.
After working as a software developer for Venmo in New York, Yassin left his job in 2016 to travel and document his journeys. Ultimately, he launched a Facebook page called Nas Daily – using the word for “people” in Arabic – where he posted one-minute videos for 1,000 days, telling the stories of communities around the world.
What was once a personal brand has since expanded into the parent Nas Company, which offers platforms for solo entrepreneurs to build and monetize their online businesses.
Yassin earned an honorary degree from Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in 2025 in recognition of his advocacy work for Israeli and Palestinian coexistence. This past August, he also joined the advisory board for the Genesis Prize Foundation, which each year celebrates inspiring Jewish individuals for their achievements.
“I do not relate to hundreds of men on the street shouting ‘Allahu Akbar,’” Yassin told JTA, adding that there needed to be more women and fewer religious fanatics participating in the Israeli-Palestinian conversation.
Yassin argued that he’s “not a weird Arab for saying this” and that “the entire country of the UAE says the same thing,” referring to one of the Gulf countries that signed onto the Abraham Accords normalizing relations with Israel. He also challenged “Free Palestine” activists to envision a concrete future for Palestinians rather than fixating on Israel’s transgressions.
“We should all be ‘Free Palestine’ – but from what?” Yassin asked. “We disagree on the solution, not on the problem. We don’t want suffering. Nobody wants suffering.”
“I’m a free-Palestine-from-Hamas guy,” he continued. “Just free Palestine,” he said, ”is not an answer. I’m free-Palestine-from-extremism.”
Yassin affirmed that there is room for criticism of Israel’s government, noting, for example, that he would like to see an Israeli-Arab presence in the government.
But he marveled at the notion that an alien visiting Earth would likely guess that the most hated country in the United Nations is North Korea, when in fact “It’s not – It’s Israel.”
That struck him as absurd because “the Israel-Palestine conflict is not a big deal when you compare it to everything else that’s happening on planet Earth. The only thing that makes it a big deal is that we, as Palestinians, have the perfect enemy.”
That enemy, he continued, is “the most hated type of enemy, which is the Jews.”
As part of his appearance at the conference, Yassin presented a recap of a fellowship he launched this past spring in partnership with the David Merage Foundation to help 50 content creators – 25 Jewish and 25 Muslim – produce meaningful material.
Participants received $1,000 and spent a month learning from the Nas Daily team about viral and impactful storytelling during the fellowship, named for Yassin’s first Jewish friend, Zaki Djemal, who recently died of a sudden heart attack.
To Laura Merage, the Iranian-born Jewish co-founder of the foundation, Yassin was a natural partner for this bridge-building effort. Given his social media following and “infectious personality,” Merage said she felt “that’s what we need more of in the world.”
At the conference on Tuesday, Yassin announced two winners of the fellowship’s influencer competition: recent McGill University graduate Raihaana Adira, a Canadian Muslim, and Grace, a Jewish-American digital content creator who preferred to use only her first name for privacy reasons. Grace tells stories about unique public figures, such as the first Arab “Miss Israel.” Adira, meanwhile, began posting about antisemitism and Muslim-Jewish relations after witnessing anti-Zionist protests at McGill.
“When I see a Jewish person being attacked on campus or online, it feels like I’m watching someone from my own community hurt,” Adira told JTA, noting that she started posting because no one believed her when she talked about incidents on campus.
“I wanted the protests and the graffiti on the walls that said ‘Death to the IDF’ to be seen,” she continued. “I am a Canadian, I am a Muslim, and when people at school on the streets say, ‘Death to Canada, We are Hamas, Hamas is heroic’ – that is not me.”
Adira said she received many death threats when she first started posting. While acknowledging how difficult that was, she also emphasized an influx of support that has helped “drown out the hate.”
Yassin offered a similar perspective, noting that at the beginning of his career, he “used to amplify the blowback and talk a lot about it,” referring to the criticisms he’d receive for promoting coexistence and calling out antisemitism. But after realizing that this deterred others from speaking out, he deemed the threats insignificant, calling them “the smallest price to pay for the largest outcome you can possibly imagine.”
During his travels around the world, Yassin said he has witnessed how flawed people’s perceptions of Jews can be and that he feels “a responsibility to set the record straight.” He also noted that he is dating a Jewish woman, author and influencer Aija Mayrock, whom he is marrying next year and with whom he expects to have children.
“They’re going to be Jewish, so that’s my family – literally, my family,” Yassin said.
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post Israeli-Arab influencer behind ‘Nas Daily’: Anti-Zionism is antisemitism appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Four Seats or No Seats? Why Israel’s Final Polls Disagree Over Amcha Yisrael
Conflicting projections for Ofer Winter’s party illustrate the uncertainty of measuring public support near an electoral threshold.
A Channel 12 poll gives Ofer Winter’s Amcha Yisrael four parliamentary seats.
An i24NEWS survey reaches the same seat total.
Other final polls find that the party does not qualify for representation.
How can surveys conducted close to the same election produce such different results?
The answer lies partly in the difference between measuring a vote share and converting it into parliamentary seats.
A Statistical Boundary
Israel’s electoral threshold is 3.25 percent.
For a party receiving substantially more than that percentage, modest sampling fluctuations may change its expected number of seats without calling its parliamentary presence into question.
For a party whose support lies near 3.25 percent, the same type of fluctuation may change its projected representation from several seats to zero.
This does not necessarily mean the polls are measuring completely different political realities.
They may be producing estimates close to the same threshold but on opposite sides of it.
Sample Size Is Only One Factor
The i24NEWS survey conducted on October 22 included 5,124 adult respondents and reported a sampling error of plus or minus 1.4 percentage points at the 95 percent confidence level.
That is a substantial sample by conventional political polling standards.
But a larger sample does not eliminate every source of uncertainty.
Different pollsters may employ different recruitment methods, weighting systems and procedures for estimating turnout.
They may also differ in how they handle respondents who are undecided or reluctant to state their preferences.
These choices can matter particularly for smaller parties.
The Problem of Turnout
Opinion polls generally estimate voting preferences before actual voting takes place.
Election results reflect the ballots cast by people who participate.
Differences between intended and actual turnout can affect parties in different ways.
Analysts must therefore consider not only how many respondents express support for a party, but also whether the poll’s turnout model accurately reflects the eventual electorate.
Without transparent, comparable information about the methods used by each polling organization, it is difficult to identify which methodological difference is responsible for a particular disagreement.
Reading the Final Surveys
The appropriate interpretation of Amcha Yisrael’s polling is neither that its parliamentary representation is guaranteed nor that exclusion is certain.
The available surveys demonstrate uncertainty around a legally decisive boundary.
The four-seat projections reported by Channel 12 and i24NEWS are meaningful observations.
So are the below-threshold findings published by Channel 13, Maariv and Zman Yisrael.
Each survey is a measurement of electoral intentions under a particular methodology, not a count of actual votes.
For readers following Israel’s election, this makes Amcha Yisrael an instructive case study in how polling uncertainty interacts with electoral law.
The final result will provide the definitive seat allocation. The polls explain why the outcome was difficult to measure in advance.
Uncategorized
As Trump betrays Ukraine, it’s beginning to feel a lot like Munich
In Munich on Sept. 30, 1938, the leaders of Britain and France signed an agreement with Adolf Hitler that caved to the Nazi leader’s demand that Germany be given a chunk of Czechoslovakia. Five months later, Hitler ordered the German military to forcibly take the remainder of the neighboring country.
On Oct. 9, 2026, Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin struck a deal allowing Russia to sell diesel fuel to global markets, most importantly to the US. Then Trump waived a package of sanctions on Russia that had been passed by Congress. By replenishing Russia’s war coffers, it is likely more Ukrainians will die because of these twin gifts from America’s president to the warmongering Russian autocrat.
Why is Trump doing this? He seems to be hoping the diesel deal will help him avert disaster in the upcoming midterms. Or maybe there’s more to it than that. Perhaps Trump seriously thinks that this will get him the Nobel Peace Prize by ending the war in Ukraine through helping Putin win it. Perhaps it’s one more scheme to further enrich himself and his family. Or maybe Putin really does have something on Trump.
In any event, it feels like Munich all over again.
There are some remarkable parallels between Czechoslovakia’s predicament in 1938 and Ukraine’s nine decades later: separatists in two vulnerable Central European democracies were encouraged and supported by a neighboring authoritarian regime that sought to seize adjacent territory under the pretext of protecting a minority from oppression.
And at the center of both narratives is betrayal: of Czechoslovakia by Britain and France, and Ukraine by Trump.
In the spring and summer of 1938, Konrad Henlein, leader of the Nazi-allied Sudeten German Party in Czechoslovakia, held secret meetings with Hitler and other Nazi officials. They concocted a plan: Cause so much disorder in the Sudetenland that the Czech government would declare martial law, thus creating an excuse for German troops to march in to protect the ethnic German minority.
Tensions that had long existed along the Czech frontier erupted into gunfire and death in the Sudeten town of Habersbirk on the morning of Sept. 13, 1938. A mob of German separatists hung a swastika banner from a church tower, stormed the police station, kidnapped the wife of a cop, and engaged in gunfights with police officers that lasted hours. Four Czech police officers and four insurgents died. Outbreaks of violence, terror and torture raged along the border for days, backed by Freikorps paramilitary troops who crossed from Germany and by SA and SS men who took part in cross-border sabotage and armed attacks.
The uprising had the desired impact. Just 17 days later — on Sept. 30, 1938 — Britain, France, Italy and Nazi Germany signed the Munich Agreement, yielding to Hitler’s demand that the Sudetenland be ceded to him. After landing at an airport outside London, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain waved a document in his hand and jubilantly proclaimed:
“The settlement of the Czechoslovak problem which has now been achieved is, in my view, only the prelude to a larger settlement in which all Europe may find peace.”
“I believe it is peace for our time,” Chamberlain said later that day.
But it didn’t take long for Hitler to show he could not be trusted. Hitler’s army marched into Czechoslovakia on March 15, 1939. Germany’s invasion of Poland followed less than six months later, and by 1942 German forces controlled territory spanning from the Atlantic Ocean to deep inside the Soviet Union.
Ethnic Germans’ uprising in Czechoslovakia in 1938 found an echo nine decades later in Ukraine’s Donbas region, where unrest that began with pro-Russia protests in 2014 evolved into the war Russia has been waging on its neighbor for nearly five years.
In the spring of 2014, paramilitary units led by Russian intelligence officers stormed government office buildings in several towns and cities in Donbas, seizing weapons and clashing with police. In a scene reminiscent of the Habersbirk siege of 1938, on April 14, 2014, pro-Russian militants seized the police station in Horlivka, beat up the police chief, and murdered a member of the city council, whose body was found in a river. Similar clashes occurred throughout Donbas.
Two Kremlin-backed pseudo-states soon emerged: the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Luhansk People’s Republic. Russia funneled tanks, artillery, air defense systems and fighters into Donbas, fueling a war between separatists and Ukrainian forces that dragged on for years.
Like Hitler in the Sudetenland, Russia’s de facto occupation of Donbas was not enough for Vladimir Putin. His eyes were on all of Ukraine, and he spent years manufacturing pretexts for the full-scale invasion that began on Feb. 24, 2022.
Trump has been buttering up Putin for more than a decade, starting with his 2015 campaign for president, when he effusively praised the ruthless Russian autocrat’s leadership style. Putin is a “strong leader,” is “far more respected than our president,” meaning the immensely popular Barack Obama, and was someone he “would get along with very well,” Trump said back then.
Trump’s admiration for Putin took on ominous tones after becoming president. During a press conference after the two leaders’ 2018 Helsinki summit, Trump questioned intelligence findings on Russian election interference and said he believed Putin’s denial. “I don’t see any reason it would be Russia,” Trump told reporters, with the Russian strongman standing at his side.
After Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, during Biden’s presidency, Trump called it “a pretty smart move,” praised Putin as a “genius,” and also said it wouldn’t have happened if Trump was still president, remarks that were amplified by Russian state media.
During Trump’s second term, his buddy-buddy relationship with Putin has turned into a virtual strategic alliance, as the American president repeatedly makes moves and statements that seem designed to please the Russian autocrat. There are Trump’s threats to abandon NATO, his humiliation of Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky during a February 2025 meeting inside the Oval Office, and most recently Trump’s demand that Ukraine cease its drone attacks on Russian oil refineries, his call for Zelensky’s ouster, and envoy Steve Witkoff thanking Putin for being a “humanitarian.”
Putin has proposed a summit between himself, Trump, and Chinese leader Xi Jinping to discuss ending the war in Ukraine. It’s notable that Ukraine has not been invited. This is also what happened in Munich nine decades ago, when Czech delegates were excluded from the room, and others decided Czechoslovakia’s fate.
Last October, aboard Air Force One, Trump told reporters the Donbas region should be “cut up,” leaving most of it in Russian hands.
“Let it be cut the way it is,” he said. “They can negotiate something later on down the line.”
It seems the fate Trump envisions for Ukraine is similar to the one Hitler envisioned for Czechoslovakia. It would be naïve to think that Putin’s expansionist ambitions would stop there.
The post As Trump betrays Ukraine, it’s beginning to feel a lot like Munich appeared first on The Forward.
