Many progressive Michiganders – especially in the Jewish community – will hold their nose and vote for Democratic Senatorial candidate Abdul El-Sayed despite his association, friendship and political partnership with antisemitic streamer Hasan Piker.

Many will hold their nose because El-Sayed has called Israel a “rogue” state, refusing to recognize the Jewish State of Israel as legitimate.

They will hold their nose and vote for El-Sayed because they are more scared of the Republicans’ hold on the Senate than a tainted Democrat.

However, as a social progressive who almost always votes Democrat, I want to push back against this logic and urge my fellow Michigan Democrats and progressives to vote for Republican candidate Mike Rogers for the sake of progressive, democratic values.

For me, the disdain that El-Sayed has shown for the Jewish community, especially in his continuing refusal to disavow his relationship with Piker, puts him in the same category as candidates who are openly racist and homophobic. Even the most loyal progressive would reject a racist, even if that meant risking a Republican Senate.

To show the Democrats that such candidates should never be nominated, we must show them that such candidates can never win. Such a candidate winning would be a disaster for the most fundamental requirements we have for any candidate of any party.

Instead, those who really want to focus on turning the Senate Democratic should slip across Michigan’s border to Ohio to knock on doors for Sherrod Brown or donate to help James Talarico in Texas. Those efforts would be a real show of Democratic and progressive solidarity – much more than a vote for El-Sayed.

Donald Trump and the Republican party would like nothing more than to see Abdul El-Sayed in the Senate – an easy target to paint all progressives, liberals and loyal Democrats with the brush of anti-Zionism and antisemitism.

The anti-Israel and antisemitic words of El-Sayed and other extremists in the party are a poison that has the potential to severely damage the party long term and make it unviable both for Jews and all those with traditional liberal values. Only a decisive win for Rogers will send a clear message to the Democrats that a return to a stance that is both pro-Israel and pro Palestinian, respecting the Jewish community, is the only way for a strong party to stand up to the Republicans in national elections to defend our progressive values.

This election is not just about the safety and future of Jews in the Democratic party. It is also about returning America to a place where we do not tolerate the harassment of people with whom we politically disagree. The harassment and intimidation of any candidate considered pro-Israel at the Michigan Democratic convention in April traumatized many Jewish participants. Michigan’s Jewish Attorney General Dana Nessel skipped the convention on Saturday out of fear for her safety.

Meanwhile, El-Sayed has said nothing to apologize for his supporters who carried out this gross infraction of the democratic process.  Imagine what the National Democratic Convention will look like in less than two years if this model of behavior is not denounced now. Jews with traditional pro-Israel values will see they have no place in the Democratic party.The only way to stop this behavior is to show that it leads to Democrats losing elections.

In recent days, El-Sayed reportedly apologized for remarks he made in March after a truck loaded with explosives rammed into Temple Israel in suburban Detroit with a driver intent on shooting whomever he didn’t blow up. There were more than 100 children inside.

Jews were shocked when El-Sayed seemed to justify the near murder with the words “hurt people hurt people.” His recent non-apology apology if anyone was hurt by his words made it worse.

He doubled down on recognizing the “context” for the attempted massacre: Israel’s actions in Lebanon fighting Hezbollah – the terror group in which the Michigan terrorist’s brother was a member when he died.

In other words, according to El-Sayed, if children are blown up in Michigan, you can blame Israel.

Moreover, he continues to blame Israel for Michigan not having enough funds for its public schools and other needs, a classic antisemitic deflection. His antisemitic blood libel continued after his primary victory when he accused Israel – not just its government – of being “bloodthirsty” – in its defensive war against Hamas.

El-Sayed’s friend and campaign partner Hasan Piker has shared the same sentiment ,warning pro-Israel American Jews that if they continue to defend Israel, they will be targeted because of that stance.

I urge my fellow progressives to examine Piker’s comments insulting Poles and Poland, blaming the West for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and his disdain for Black chatterers on his show – with the vilest of expressions.  How can they vote for a candidate who befriends such a man and repeatedly invites him to campaign events?

Yes, Mike Rogers is an old-fashioned conservative who has had to cede some ground to Donald Trump’s conspiratorial views of the 2020 election. But I would argue that worse for our democracy is to normalize the cesspool of disgusting swearing and demonization that Piker champions.

Progressive Democrats must never give up the fight for our causes.  However, in the long run, we must right the sinking ship of the Democratic party, a party which is our only hope for winning the war for our progressive values. The path to making this necessary correction is turning our energies to making sure that Mike Rogers defeats Abdul El-Sayed. That is why Rogers, a Republican, has my vote and my voice.

The post Republican Mike Rogers is the Senate candidate Democrats need to save their party appeared first on The Forward.

(JTA) — BIRMINGHAM – Michigan U.S. Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed said he wished he could retract his past comments regarding a synagogue attack, speaking with the Jewish Telegraphic Agency minutes after he issued his second apology in as many days to the Jewish community in the Wolverine State.

“If I had the opportunity to take it back, I would take it all the way back,” he said.

“There is never a justification for a terrorist act, period,” El-Sayed added. “What I was trying to say is that there is a broader question of the responsibility I think all of us have to bring down violence wherever we see it and however we see it.”

He added, “I understand and heard that people felt like it was justifying the attack, and I didn’t intend to justify it.”

El-Sayed addressed around 300 Michigan Jewish Democrats at the caucus’s annual “Summer Simcha” fundraiser in suburban Detroit on Sunday, one day after he spoke to the caucus at the state Democratic nominating convention. At both events, he sought forgiveness for his earlier comments that had linked the March attack at Temple Israel, in West Bloomfield Township, to Israel’s war in Lebanon.

In his Sunday speech he referenced the Jewish “value of tikkun olam, to repair the world,” and he affirmed the synagogue preschool had been “attacked by a terrorist.” To the gathered Jewish Democrats, the candidate added he hoped to “earn your trust.”

His outreach to Jewish voters will soon become even more pronounced. The campaign intends to hire a Jewish liaison and is in the midst of an interview process for the role, which includes talking with Jewish community leaders, a person familiar with the campaign told JTA.

With El-Sayed’s narrow primary victory, and Michigan’s increasing centrality in the fight for control of the Senate, the state’s approximately 100,000 Jewish voters — the majority of whom have historically voted Democrat — find themselves under the microscope as they weigh voting for a candidate who supports zeroing out all aid to Israel. Following his Summer Simcha speech, El-Sayed stayed to speak with a long line of Jews who came up to share their concerns.

Asked later what he’s heard from the Jews who speak to him, he told JTA, “I hear a lot about safety, and folks want to know that they’re going to be safe.”

He added, “The prerequisite of Jewish safety is never in question to me, and I just want to make that very, very clear.”

The event, at which JTA was the only media outlet given permission to attend, underscored the tension that has become increasingly difficult for Jewish Democrats, in Michigan and beyond, to reconcile: whether party candidates have earned the vote of their Jewish constituents when those candidates won’t commit to supporting Israel’s existence as a Jewish state, or haven’t taken what community members feel is a strong enough stance against antisemitism.

El-Sayed’s Jewish liaison will likely have their work cut out for them. In both of his spoken apologies this weekend, the candidate had insisted the main problem was with the timing of his attempt to apply “context” to the situation, not with the substance of what he said. Yet many Jews then and now objected to the idea that bringing up Israel’s war in Lebanon was appropriate context when discussing a synagogue attack.

Rabbi Paul Yedwab, a member of Temple Israel’s clergy who was not in attendance at the event, declined to comment to JTA on El-Sayed’s apologies, citing the synagogue board’s recent reaffirmation of a federal law prohibiting houses of worship from commenting on electoral politics.

Asked about which “context” he had been referring to in his apologies, El-Sayed told JTA he meant “violence in all of its forms, in all circumstances.”

El-Sayed shared the room with some party figures who have sharply opposed him, and who the state’s Jewish Democrats hold in high esteem. The caucus event honored state Attorney General Dana Nessel, who is Jewish and who has had public disagreements with El-Sayed over his handling of Jewish communal issues.

In her own speech, Nessel acknowledged that Jews were being forced into a “stark choice” thanks to “members of our own party who seek the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state and place the Jewish diaspora in jeopardy.”

Yet the attorney general stressed that the election was bigger than Israel, and, invoking Purim’s Queen Esther, urged Jewish voters to put their own feelings of personal safety aside.

“We have a moral imperative to place the needs of the world above even our own self-interest and, yes, even our own survival,” she told the crowd.

Nessel said that other societal concerns – climate change, artificial intelligence, the threat of nuclear warfare – loom larger than support for Israel alone and would worsen under continued GOP rule. “What is defending the historic homeland of our ancestors and demanding that candidates acknowledge its right to exist, if the planet upon which it rests is no longer inhabitable?” she asked.

“I think it’s so easy for people to lash out at what they perceive are direct attacks on their faith, on their cultural beliefs, on their historical ancestry,” Nessel told JTA following her speech. “It’s very easy for people to be mad and to say, ‘I reject that.’ I just hope that people will consider that there are many other factors at play.”

Even among caucus leadership, though, there were deep divisions over the right Jewish approach to take in the election.

“I’m a Mike Rogers supporter,” Troy Zukowski-Serlin, a Kalamazoo-based member of the Michigan Jewish Democrats board, told JTA on Sunday before El-Sayed’s speech. Despite his board position, Zukowski-Serlin said nothing would change his mind about voting for the Republican candidate: “It’s signed, sealed and delivered with me.”

His wife Michelle, who attended the event wearing a dress with an Israeli flag imprint, said she would be writing in Nessel, “my hero,” on the ballot.

Jewish Michigan state Sen. Jeremy Moss, who is running for Congress in a heavily Jewish suburban Detroit district and whose own disagreements with El-Sayed have spilled into public view, told JTA that the event was “a step in the right direction” for the candidate.

“It has lingered in the Jewish community for the last six months,” Moss said, of El-Sayed’s initial comments about the Temple Israel attack in his district. “And I appreciate that this is something that he recognized there needed to be a reckoning with, and amends toward.”

Some Jewish communal leaders in attendance, though, said he wasn’t there yet.

“He is moving, and I’m hopeful about that. And it’s making me feel more secure in his leadership,” Rabbi Josh Whinston of Temple Beth Emeth, a Reform synagogue in Ann Arbor, told JTA. “There’s still work to do.”

Whinston said he would also like to see El-Sayed address other comments he has made, including having referred to the Israeli government as “bloodthirsty.” Such language, the rabbi said, “puts us in harm’s way.”

The event’s organizers were also skeptical that El-Sayed had changed many minds.

“I think that people are pretty well set in what they want to do,” Joan Lowenstein, another caucus board member, told JTA. “But I think they still want to hear words that make them feel that someone else is thinking about what they’re concerned about.”

Liz Fried, of Ann Arbor, was one of the attendees who went up to speak to El-Sayed afterwards. She told him that her children were soon to fly to Israel, and asked if he would support funding for the Iron Dome defensive system.

He wouldn’t, she recalled to JTA — a position he has held in public.

“I was upset,” Fried said. “He doesn’t care about the safety of my children.”

This article originally appeared on JTA.org.

The post ‘All of us have to bring down violence wherever we see it,’ El-Sayed says following address to Jewish Democrats appeared first on The Forward.

Israel’s right-wing firebrand Itamar Ben-Gvir, the minister of national security, has spent the past several days under intense pressure from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to do something he plainly does not want to do: join forces in the coming election with his far-right rival, finance minister Bezalel Smotrich.

Netanyahu has good reason to be worried. Israel elects its 120-member parliament through nationwide proportional representation, but a party must win at least 3.25% of the vote to enter the Knesset. If it falls short, its votes are effectively wasted.

That is precisely the danger facing Smotrich. Recent polls ahead of the Oct. 27 election have repeatedly placed his Religious Zionism party near or below the threshold. Ben-Gvir’s Jewish Power party, by contrast, is comfortably above it. Netanyahu has therefore been pressing the two men to run together, ensuring that neither party’s votes are lost. Over the weekend, Ben-Gvir’s party issued a statement saying it would not run with Smotrich.

On its face, this looks extraordinarily irresponsible.

Israel has seen what happens when parties gamble with the threshold. In 2022, the left-wing Meretz and Arab nationalist Balad parties together won roughly 6% of the vote, but because each fell below the threshold, neither entered parliament. The result helped Netanyahu secure a comfortable Knesset majority. In 1992, wasted votes for small right-wing parties similarly contributed to Yitzhak Rabin’s narrow victory.

So why would Ben-Gvir risk helping defeat his own political camp?

The obvious explanation is ego. Ben-Gvir and Smotrich dislike each other and compete for many of the same voters.

But there is another possibility: Perhaps Ben-Gvir has already concluded that Netanyahu is going to lose. If so, what looks like recklessness may be perfectly rational.

The parties opposed to Netanyahu currently lead his bloc by roughly 20 seats or more in most serious polling. And it would be naive to assume they would refuse to rely, directly or indirectly, on Israel’s Arab parties if the alternative were another Netanyahu government, an outcome they regard as catastrophic.

If Ben-Gvir believes defeat is coming anyway, preserving every possible seat for Netanyahu’s current bloc becomes a secondary concern. His real contest begins the morning after Netanyahu loses: Who inherits the Israeli right?

Running separately allows Ben-Gvir to preserve his identity, weaken Smotrich and emerge as the undisputed leader of Israel’s radical right, even if the entire Netanyahu camp ends up in opposition.

That possibility would have sounded absurd only a few years ago.

From pariah to power broker

In 2019, Ben-Gvir could not even get elected to the Knesset. For years he inhabited the outer fringes of Israeli politics, a disciple of the racist extremist Rabbi Meir Kahane whose political tradition was considered so toxic that even Netanyahu once treated him as an embarrassment.

By 2022, Ben-Gvir had become one of the most prominent figures on the Israeli right. Netanyahu made him national security minister. The question is no longer whether Ben-Gvir belongs to mainstream Israeli politics. It is whether he might someday lead a substantial part of it.

Imagine Likud going into opposition with 19 seats and Ben-Gvir emerging with 13 – roughly the current polling. Suddenly the distance between them does not look enormous, especially after Likud has spent decades becoming almost inseparable from Netanyahu. Ben-Gvir would possess a substantial parliamentary faction, a fiercely motivated base, enormous public visibility and a powerful argument to right-wing voters: I represent what comes next. Likud represents an exhausted past.

There is no law saying Likud must remain the dominant party of the Israeli right forever. Political parties survive as dominant institutions only as long as voters believe they represent something they want. Once that bond breaks, decades of accumulated political capital can disappear remarkably quickly.

Which raises the question: What exactly is Likud without Netanyahu? The party machinery will remain, along with more than 100,000 members and a formidable institutional legacy. But after three decades of Netanyahu’s dominance, separating Likud’s identity from his own has become increasingly difficult.

Many of its most independent and impressive figures have left or been pushed aside over those decades, among them Tzipi Livni, Dan Meridor, Ariel Sharon, Ehud Olmert and Benny Begin. The cumulative exodus says something about the transformation of a once broader political movement.

The cost of Netanyahu’s compromises

Netanyahu’s dependence on Israel’s Haredi parties has surely done further damage. For decades, Likud could present itself as the natural home of Israel’s secular and traditional right: nationalist voters with strong Jewish identities who nevertheless expected the basic obligations of citizenship to be shared.

That compact is under enormous strain over military service. Most Haredi men have historically been exempted from Israel’s compulsory military service while studying full-time in religious seminaries. The arrangement has become vastly more problematic explosive since Oct. 7 and the wars that followed, which have imposed extraordinary burdens on soldiers and reservists.

The Haredim want their exemptions codified into law, and Netanyahu has attempted to comply. The issue is one of the main ones in the election. A party asking non-Haredi Israelis and their children to shoulder an ever-heavier military burden while protecting broad exemptions for the rapidly growing Haredi population should expect to pay a political price.

Here lies one of the ironies of Ben-Gvir’s rise. He represents an even more extreme version of the religious nationalism that has alienated some traditional Likud voters. Yet precisely because he is more extreme, his claim to the future right may become stronger.

Likud’s concessions to the Haredi parties can be understood as transactional politics — bargains Netanyahu needs to remain in power. Ben-Gvir’s religious radicalism is more authentic. He offers a coherent worldview in which Jewish nationalism, religious authority, territorial maximalism and hostility toward the institutions and restraints of liberal democracy reinforce one another. What Likud has adopted gradually, sometimes for reasons of political survival, Ben-Gvir offers as a complete ideological package. In that sense, he offers the product in its purest form.

Consider the Palestinian question. Much of the Israeli right wants permanent Israeli control of the West Bank. But millions of Palestinians live there, and permanent Israeli sovereignty ultimately requires an answer to their political status. If Israel permanently governs millions of Palestinians without equal political rights, its claim to liberal democracy becomes impossible to sustain. Grant them equal rights, and maintaining a decisive Jewish majority is impossible.

The mainstream right has never produced a convincing answer to this dilemma. Its effective policy has largely been to manage the contradiction indefinitely. It looks foolish in this regard. Meanwhile, the extreme right does have an answer: Palestinian submission and, ultimately, though this is whispered and not shouted, expulsion.

That answer is immoral and would carry enormous strategic consequences. It has never represented the clear majority position in Israeli society. But politically it possesses one advantage: clarity. Part of Ben-Gvir’s appeal comes from his willingness to say openly what much of the right prefers to leave unresolved.

Where the numbers are headed

Demography may strengthen him further. Israel’s secular population has lower birth rates than its Haredi and religious-Zionist populations. For decades, Likud was broad enough to accommodate secular nationalists, traditional Jews, religious voters and conservatives who wanted a strongly Jewish state while retaining some attachment to liberal democratic norms. As the right becomes more religious and culturally radical, that coalition becomes harder to maintain. Increasingly, the right will become the religious bloc, and its former secular adherents will move across the aisle.

The nationalist-religious Ben-Gvir consequently begins to look less like an aberration from the Israeli right and more like one possible expression of where it is heading.

That is why his refusal to reunite with Smotrich may be more consequential than another round of ego and rivalry. It may reflect a cold calculation: Netanyahu’s era is approaching its end, his camp may be headed for opposition, and the real prize is no longer merely a place in the next government.

It is the inheritance of the Israeli right.

Ben-Gvir has traveled an extraordinary distance already. Prior to being elected, he was convicted of offenses including supporting a terrorist organization and incitement to racism. As a young Kahanist activist in 1995, he brandished an emblem torn from Yitzhak Rabin’s Cadillac and declared, weeks before Rabin’s assassination: “We got to his car, and we’ll get to him too.”

That man is now Israel’s national security minister.

He may not be wrong about the calculation he appears to be making.

And if Ben-Gvir is positioning himself not merely to survive Netanyahu but to inherit a large part of the movement Netanyahu leaves behind, it is worth understanding that possibility now. Disasters should at least be approached with eyes wide open.

The post Netanyahu wants his far-right allies to unite. One of them is betting on a bigger prize: replacing Netanyahu himself. appeared first on The Forward.