Uncategorized
The Quiet Antisemitism: My Experience as a Jewish College Professor
There are plenty of examples of blatant antisemitism and attacks on Jews that have occurred over the past 10 months. It seems that every day, we read about a synagogue being attacked, a Jewish student being spat on or assaulted, or the all too mainstream protester chants calling for Intifada or for Jews to go back to Poland — and the list goes on.
Perhaps less obvious — but more frequent — is the antisemitism that’s happening under the radar: things that are circumstantial and much harder to prove.
I’m not talking about Jewish writers having their lectures cancelled out of concern “for their safety” — it’s clear to everyone (except the organizers) where the motivation comes from.
No, this is the kind of discrimination that Black people and others experienced before the Civil Rights movement — and even after: being rejected as a tenant on a lease to an apartment, passed over for a job or promotion based on the color of their skin , or — as in my case — perhaps not having a contract renewed at a college after speaking out against their policies regarding “free speech.”
Do I have proof that me being Israeli or Jewish had anything to do with my dismissal?
Absolutely not.
But are the circumstances suspicious? Yes.
Two years ago, I accepted a Visiting Assistant Professorship in the English Department of a private Midwestern college in the United States. It was a one-year contract, and following the first year, the Chair of the Department notified me how much he appreciated my work — noting the anonymous student evaluations that gave me high marks, that a large number of students requested to take a second class with me, and that I helped raise the visibility of the college through public performances by my students. He also informed me that there was restructuring going on in the English Department, which would result in some of the classes I was teaching being offered only periodically.
In short, he asked me if I would be interested in remaining affiliated with the school, and return either every other semester, or, for instance, if another English teacher took a sabbatical. That suited me fine, as it allowed me to continue teaching, but also gave me time for my own creative endeavors back in Los Angeles, where I was commuting from every week.
On October 7, I was not teaching on campus. But like so many other colleges, a segment of the student population rose up to protest Israel. And even though I was a thousand miles away, I received an email from a student member of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) notifying all faculty that the group was calling for a one-day strike to protest, accompanied with a list of atrocities Israel had allegedly committed, even listing the bombing of the Al-Shifa hospital in Gaza two weeks earlier, which had already been attributed to a stray missile from Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
How was it possible for one student to access the entire faculty and student body to spew their propaganda?
I contacted the Provost and Dean of the college to inquire. She replied that this was a recent policy change put into place two years earlier to encourage freedom of expression. I asked how this policy might play out if I rebutted the student’s charges through the college-wide email system, only to have another student rebut my defense, and so on and so on?
She replied that if it got out of hand, the school would shut it down.
I replied that the situation had already gotten out of hand, and trusted I wouldn’t be receiving anymore emails from such organizations.
The student newspaper got wind of this, and contacted me for my opinion. Here’s what they wrote in their article:
Safdie, who is of Israeli and Syrian Jewish descent, found sections of the message antisemitic and questioned why he received the email. “I’m all for freedom of expression, but I’m not sure this decision was able to foresee such a situation where students might abuse the privilege and create a hostile work/study environment for other members of the community.”
Fast forward several months, when I returned to campus for the Spring semester. Within a week of arrival, I received an email from the new chair of the English Department (who was also the associate Dean of the Race and Ethnic Studies program). She wanted to set up a Zoom meeting with me — even though our offices were 10 feet apart.
In a carefully worded statement that sounded like it was crafted by an attorney, she got to the point. Although the college was extremely pleased with all the work that I’d done, and that all my students loved my teaching, the college was making budget cuts and were not going to be able to renew my contract.
When I tried to explain to her my prior arrangement with the previous Chair, she simply replied that she’d be happy to write me a letter of recommendation.
Something about the Zoom call and her demeanor felt suspicious.
On a whim, I did an Internet search on my new Chair.
The first thing that came up on her Twitter Feed was a statement on the masthead of a literary magazine she edited, condemning the alleged mass killing and displacement of Palestinians in the wake of Hamas’s October 7, 2023, attacks.
As I explored further, I discovered other parts of the statement:
The Israeli military—with the support of the U.S. government—has bombarded Palestinian civilians relentlessly, in violation of international law, and deprived Palestinians of food, water, fuel, and electricity.
And:
Because we work to “bring our readers into the living moment, not as tourists, but as engaged participants,” we believe that Palestinians need space to speak directly, whether from siege in Palestine or in diaspora. So too do others who bear witness to the ongoing settler-colonial violence in Gaza and the occupied West Bank.
Two days after the Zoom meeting, I figured I might as well take the Chair up on her offer to write me a letter-of-recommendation; it was March, and I could still apply to other universities for employment the following year. (Universities can be suspicious if you leave a position after just two years, so a letter would be crucial to securing a position.)
After a week of email silence, the Chair wrote me back, saying that she wasn’t familiar with my teaching and requested to attend one of my classes to observe my skills. I invited her the following week to attend a class, which fit her schedule, but she did not show, and didn’t even write to give an explanation.
I followed up with an email to offer her another opportunity, followed by a second and third, but there was nothing but email silence.
I should also mention that, at the one faculty meeting we had, she stayed as far away from me as possible, and if I approached, she would quickly engage in discussion with another professor. The topic that day was adding a requirement for English Majors to take an anti-Racism class. One of the new offerings for the following year was focused on racism against Palestinians.
By the end of April, I decided to contact the Associate Dean of Humanities who oversaw the English Department, and sure enough, within an hour of my email, I finally received an email back from the Chair of the English Department, offering to attend my class, but letting me know that she was too busy to write me a letter of recommendation until the end of May — well past the end of the semester, and too late to help with a teaching application for the following year.
If there was ever a thought of going to the administration to complain about my treatment, that was quickly extinguished following an SJP demonstration that demanded that the college divest from Oracle. Apparently, Oracle’s website had stated support for Israel, and the Head of Financial Aid for the college felt the need to apologize for the school’s actions.
A response from the school’s administration read thus:“The business strategy or public statements from Oracle do not represent the viewpoints of the College. Due to the College’s contract with the business and the cost it took to make such major system changes, the College does not have any feasible or affordable alternative.
It also went on to assure protesters:
Less than 0.5 percent of the College’s investments are tied to Israeli companies and that none of these investments are directly held by the college.
As the semester ended, on another whim, I searched the Human Resources page of the college, and sure enough, there was a listing for a new English professor. The skills they were looking for were for someone who taught poetry as well as Race and Ethnic studies courses — none of which I was qualified to teach.
Was the college looking to shift away from courses like Screenwriting, Playwriting, and Non-Fiction — three popular courses I had taught that were always in high demand and had long waiting lists?
I guess I’ll never know.
Oren Safdie is a playwright and screenwriter.
The post The Quiet Antisemitism: My Experience as a Jewish College Professor first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
Uncategorized
Why did Moses command Jews to choose between a blessing and a curse?
אין פּרשת ראה רופֿט משה רבינו דאָס ייִדישע פֿאָלק צו זען די ברכה און די קללה, וואָס דער באַשעפֿער גיט פֿאַרן מקיים זײַן אָדער, חלילה, פֿאַרן עובֿר זײַן אויף זײַנע מיצוות. „ראה, אָנוכי נותן לפֿניכם היום ברכה וקללה“ — זעט, איך גיב אײַך הײַנט אַ ברכה און אַ קללה.
אין די פֿאָריקע פּרשיות האָבן מיר שוין דערמאָנט, אַז דער חומש „דבֿרים“ פֿאָקוסירט אויף דירעקטע באַציִונגען צווישן דעם מענטש און דעם באַשעפֿער. דער רבונו־של־עולם האָט אָנגענומען משה רבינוס ווערטער ווי אַן אינטעגראַלן חלק פֿון זײַן תּורה, ווײַל משה האָט דערגרייכט די הויכע מדרגה פֿון אַ געטלעכן מענטש; די הייליקע שכינה אַליין האָט גערעדט דורך זײַן מויל.
אויב אַזוי, קאָן מען פֿאַרשטיין, אַז פֿון משה רבינוס דערהויבענער פּערספּעקטיוו האָט ער פּערזענלעך געזען די ברכות, וואָס קומען ווי אַ רעזולטאַט פֿונעם מקיים זײַן די מיצוות. אין אונדזער פּרשה לייענען מיר אָבער, אַז משה האָט אָנגעזאָגט די ייִדן דורכצופֿירן אַ קאָקרעטן ריטואַל בעתן אַרײַנקומען אין ארץ־ישׂראל, כּדי יעדער זאָל משׂיג זײַן די דאָזיקע קאָנצעפּציע מיט זײַנע אייגענע אויגן. ווי די תּורה דערקלערט שפּעטער, האָבן זעקס ייִדישע שבֿטים געדאַרפֿט זאָגן אַ גאַנצע ריי ברכות אויפֿן באַרג גריזים, און די אַנדערע זעקס שבֿטים האָבן געשאָלטן די רשעים אויפֿן בשכנותדיקן באַרג עיבֿל, כּדי אויף אַ גשמיותדיקן אופֿן צו שילדערן דעם חילוק צווישן שׂכר־מיצוות און דער שטראָף פֿאַר עבֿירות.
די חסידישע מפֿרשים אַסאָציִיִרן דעם נאָמען פֿון אונדזער סדרה מיט די ניסים פֿון מתּן־תּורה. די תּורה באַטאָנט, אַז ווען דער אייבערשטער האָט געגעבן די תּורה אויפֿן באַרג סיני, האָבן אַלע ייִדן געזען דאָס קול פֿונעם באַשעפֿער; די חז״ל דערקלערן, אַז דעם אייבערשטנס ווערטער האָבן זיך אין זייער שׂכל פֿאַרוואַנדלט אין וויזיעס.
הרבֿ אַריה קאַפּלאַן, דער באַקאַנטער וויסנשאַפֿטלעך־אָריענטירטער פּאָפּולאַריזאַטאָר פֿון קבלה און חסידות, האָט אין זײַנע ווערק מסביר געווען, אַז לויט דער מאָדערנער פּסיכאָלאָגיע זענען די דאָזיקע דבֿרי־חז״ל גאַנץ פֿאַרשטענדלעך. הגם אונדזער מוח באַהאַנדלט די אינפֿאָרמאַציע פֿון די אויערן און אויגן אויף באַזונדערע אופֿנים, איז דער פּראָצעס בעצם דער זעלבער. אין אויסעראָרדנטלעכע סיטואַציעס – און די מתּן־תּורה איז זיכער אַ גוטער בײַשפּיל דערפֿון – קאָנען אונדזערע חושים זיך צונויפֿשמעלצן. למשל, ווען מיר זעען אַ חלום און עצעמער פּרוּווט אונדז אויפֿצוּוועקן, ווערן די ווערטער פֿונעם דרויסנדיקן מענטש צומאָל פֿאַרוואַנדלט אין חלומדיקע וויזועלע פֿיגורן. אין דער הײַנטיקער פּסיכאָלאָגיע ווערן אַזאַ פֿענאָמען אָנגערופֿן „סינעסטעזיע‟.
די תּורה בלײַבט אָבער אַקטועל אין יעדן דור. הגם מיר זענען ווײַט פֿון משה רבינוס דערהויבענער מדרגה פֿון דבֿקות און פֿונעם מיסטישן שׂכל־צושטאַנד בעת דער מתּן־תּורה, זאָגט אונדז משה רבינו קלאָר, אַז אין אַ געוויסער מאָס קאָנען מיר אַלע זען די פּירות פֿון אונדזער עבֿודת־השם אין דער וועלט. די גײַסטיקע דערפֿאַרונג בײַם באַרג סיני בלײַבט אײַנגעקריצט אין אונדזערע נשמות, און מיר זענען טאַקע מסוגל צו זען מיט אונדזערע אויגן דעם באַשעפֿערס שפֿע פֿאַרן מקיים זײַן די מיצוות.
אין די פֿריִערדיקע צוויי סדרות האָבן מיר געלייענט די ווערטער פֿון דער וויכטיקסטער ייִדישער תּפֿילה: קריאת־שמע. צוויי מאָל אַ טאָג, מוזן מיר זיך דערמאָנען, אַז אַלץ אין דער וועלט איז אַ געטלעכע אַנטפּלעקונג. דער אות „ח‟ אינעם וואָרט „אחד‟ איז מרמז בגימטריא, אַז דער רבונו־של־עולם איז איינער אויף די זיבן הימלען און אויף דער ערד, און דער אות „ד‟ דערמאָנט אונדז, אַז אין אַלע פֿיר ריכטונגען אַרום אונדז און אין אַלע פֿיר עלעמענטן פֿון דער נאַטור דערשפּירט זיך דער געטלעכער כּוח. ווי רבי לוי־יצחק באַרדיטשעווער, דער באַרימטער חסידישער צדיק, זינגט אין זײַן ניגון „דודעלע‟, געפֿינען מיר איבעראַל דעם אייבערשטן און פֿאָרט בלײַבט ער פֿון אונדז באַהאַלטן. ווי דער בעל־שם־טובֿ האָט זיך אויסגעדריקט, ווען אַ בלאַט פֿאַלט אַראָפּ פֿון אַ בוים, איז עס אַ טייל פֿונעם געטלעכן באַשאַף־פּלאַן.
אויב מע טראַכט זיך אַרײַן, זעען מיר יעדן טאָג מיט אונדזערע אויגן גאַנץ קאָנקרעטע ברכות און קללות אויף אַ גאַנץ פּשוטן אופֿן, אָן קיין הויכע עבֿודות און מעדיטאַציעס. אַדרבה, צום באַדויערן, זענען די מענטשן אָפֿטמאָל אַליין שולדיק אין דעם, וואָס דעם אייבערשטנס השגחה בלײַבט פֿון אונדז באַהאַלטן. ווען אין די נײַעס דערציילט מען שרעקלעכע ידיעות וועגן מלחמות און אַנדערע צרות, דאַרפֿן מיר געדענקען, אַז די וועלט נייטיקט זיך אין אַ תּיקון. וואָס מער מיר זאָרגן זיך וועגן די מיצוות בין אָדם־לחבֿרו, אונדזערע עטישע פֿליכטן לגבי אַנדערע מענטשן, אַלץ קלאָרער זעען מיר מיט אונדזערע אויגן, ווי די וועלט ווערט אַ בעסער געבענטשט אָרט.
דער גרויסער מקובל און בעל־מוסר אלעזר אַזכּרי באַמערקט אין דער הקדמה צו זײַן „ספֿר־חרדים‟, אַז דער באַקאַנטער ספֿרדישער צדיק רבי יוסף סרגוסי האָט זוכה געווען צו דערגרייכן אַ הויכע מדרגה פֿון רוח־הקודש, ווײַל ער פֿלעגט אַרומלויפֿן אין צפֿת, כּדי שלום צו מאַכן אַפֿילו צווישן צופֿעליקע צעקריגטע אַראַבישע פּאָרפֿעלקער. אונדזער באַטייליקונג אינעם וועלט־תּיקון, לאַוו־דווקא אין אונדזערע אייגענע קהילות, ברענגט גאַנץ פּראַקטישע רעזולטאַטן סײַ אין דער אַרומיקער סבֿיבֿה, סײַ אין אונדזערע נשמות.
פֿון דער צווייטער זײַט, כּל־זמן ערגעץ אין דער וועלט הערשט שׂינאה און אומיושר, בלײַבן מיר אין גלות, פֿאַרזונקען אין סיטרא־אַחרא. אַדרבה, ווען אַ ייִדישע קהילה זאָרגט זיך בלויז וועגן אירע אינערלעכע ענינים, ווערט זי אָפֿט באַוואַקסן מיט אַ גאַנץ פּעקל קללות און צרות. אין אַ סבֿיבֿה, וווּ מע היט זיך אָפּ אויף כּלערליי אופֿנים פֿון דער „פֿאַרשאָלטענער‟ דרויסנדיקער וועלט, קריכן גרינג אַרײַן אינטריגעס, קריגערײַען און אַנדערע פּראָבלעמען; צוליב אַזאַ באַציִונג, נעבעך, קאָן מען אַליין פֿאַרשאָלטן ווערן. אויב מע טראַכט זיך אַרײַן, קאָנען מיר גאַנץ קלאָר דערזען, אַז די וועלט נייטיקט זיך אין אונדזער גלאָבאַלער עבֿודת־התּיקונים; די לעכערדיקע און קרומע באַציִונג צו די מיצוות בין אָדם־לחבֿרו זענען אַ קוואַל פֿון בפֿירושע קללות.
עס באַקומט זיך, אַז וואָס שייך די צווישן־מענטשלעכע מיצוות, איז גאַנץ גרינג צו דערזען די ברכות און קללות, וואָס ס׳שטעקן אין זיי. די תּורה באַטאָנט אין אונדזער פּרשה, אַז דער אייבערשטער האָט פֿאַרטריבן די כּנענים און געגעבן זייער לאַנד צו ייִדן נישט צוליב די ייִדישע זכותים, נאָר צוליב די רישעותדיקע מעשׂים פֿון די אַמאָליקע כּנענישע פֿעלקער, וועלכע האָבן אויף עקסטרעם אַכזריותדיקע אופֿנים צעטראָטן די עטישע יסודות פֿון מענטשלעכקייט.
פֿון דער צווייטער זײַט, איז גאַנץ גרינג צו דערשפּירן די ברכה אין אַ היים, וווּ עס הערשט שלום־בית און פֿרידלעכע באַציִונגען מיט די שכנים. אין אַ שיל, וווּ אַלע מתפּללים זענען בשלום איינער מיטן צווייטן און האָבן דרך־ארץ פֿאַר דער אַרומיקער וועלט רוט אויך אַ געזונטע און געבענטשטע אַטמאָספֿער.
רבי פּינחס־אליהו האָראָוויץ דערקלערט אין זײַן „ספֿר הברית‟, אויפֿן סמך פֿון רבי חיים וויטאַל און אַנדערע קלאַסישע קבלה־קוואַלן, אַז אין אַ ברודערלעכער און פֿרײַנדלעכער געזעלשאַפֿט קאָנען אַפֿילו דורכשניטלעכע מענטשן דערגרייכן דעם רוח־הקודש. אויב מיר זענען מקיים ווי געהעריק די מיצוות בין אָדם־לחבֿרו, קענען מיר אויך דערזען די ברכה, וואָס שטעקט אין די מיצוות בין אָדם־למקום, ריין־גײַסטיקע באַציִונג־ענינים צווישן דעם מענטש און דעם אייבערשטן. כּדי צוצוקומען אויף וויפֿל מע קען צו דער שכינה־אַנטפּלעקונג און אויסצומײַדן די דערמאָנטע קהילה־פּראָבלעמען, מוזן מיר זיך קודם־כּל פֿאָקוסירן אויפֿן סאָציאַלן אַספּעקט פֿון דער תּורה, וואָס דערמעגלעכט צו זען דירעקטע פּאָזיטיווע רעזולטאַטן פֿון אונדזער עבֿודת־השם.
The post Why did Moses command Jews to choose between a blessing and a curse? appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
In the Michigan Senate race, Jews should (and will) vote for democracy
Michigan Jews are feeling the ground shifting beneath us. For the first time, the Democratic candidate to represent Michigan in the United States Senate is not an advocate of unconditional support for Israel’s government. And he is one of a growing number of progressive leaders pushing the Democratic establishment to fight for the values it claims to stand on.
Many in our communities hoped for a different outcome in yesterday’s primary and feel destabilized by the shifting political terrain. Others feel hopeful, for the first time, of being represented on the electoral stage. Moving into the general election, when the stakes are so high, I would like to refocus the conversation on our shared values.
When I cast my ballot Tuesday, and when I cast it again in November, I do so with the wisdom of Pirkei Avot 1:18 in mind: on three things does the world stand — on justice, on truth, and on peace, as it is said: “execute the judgment of truth and peace in your gates” (Zechariah 8:16). Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel and others of his generation were building communities out of the rubble of the Temple’s destruction. They asked themselves, as they rebuilt: what are our core principles? What values need to sit at the center of this new order? Out of the wreckage, what new world will we create?
Let those three pillars be our voting guide.
Din — Judgment. Who will fight for fairness? Who is beholden to corporate interests and who will stand for economic equality? A candidate’s record on wages, on housing, on the right to organize — these will show commitment to justice.
Emet — Truth. Who tells us the truth, even when it costs them? In the words of former Rep. Andy Levin, we are looking for “authenticity, bravery, and truth-telling.” Who can help to rebuild trust in our public servants and institutions?
Shalom — Peace. Which candidate will challenge the military-industrial complex? Who will work to reduce war and violence in our world, rather than fund more of it? At home and abroad.
In this election, we have an unusually clear lens for understanding a candidate’s values: immigration enforcement. Immigration and Customs Enforcement — ICE — is where our society’s authoritarian drift is most visible and most violent. So as we lean on the pillar of Shalom to consider candidates, we can ask a direct question: is this someone who will bakesh shalom v’radfehu — seek peace and pursue it — for the people in ICE’s crosshairs? Or will they support the expansion of a paramilitary force into our schools and neighborhoods?
Justice, Truth and Peace — these are the values upon which “the world stands.” But what does it mean for the world to stand? A classic rabbinic commentary interprets this as the preservation of human society. Which candidate will protect the environment, will put people over profit, will choose the survival of our communities over the balance sheet of the insurance, arms and oil industries? By this measure, the idea that Jews who want unconditional aid for Israel should therefore vote for a candidate who would strip away abortion rights, gut health care, and undermine the basic machinery of democracy is, to use a technical term, cuckoo banana-cakes.
And then there is the issue of antisemitism. My teacher Rabbi Mordechai Liebling explains that on the left, antisemitism is a bug and not a feature — a problem that can be and must be addressed. On the right, antisemitism is a foundational worldview. The real threat to American Jews is the far right. It’s they who promulgate conspiracy theories and it’s they who deploy ICE into our communities to kidnap our neighbors.
I personally think that Dr. El-Sayed is not antisemitic — certainly not any more than the general population. But I don’t need to convince you of that. What I hope you’ll hear is that Abdul is someone with whom we share core values — that he is someone the Jewish community can work with. What I hope you’ll hear is that a liberal-fascist coalition is out of the question, and that a liberal-left coalition is the only path forward. In November, we will elect a politician who will work with the people and not against us. Our loyalty is not to any party, but to the movement for a true democracy — and to the leaders who will work with us to advance it.
The ground doesn’t have to shift beneath us; we can be a part of moving that ground, of redrawing the politics of the possible. May Zechariah’s vision of justice, truth and peace come to pass, speedily and in our days, and may we merit to help make it so.
The post In the Michigan Senate race, Jews should (and will) vote for democracy appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
On El-Sayed, Michigan’s Jewish Democrats aren’t all ready to unite behind nominee
Following Abdul El-Sayed’s narrow win of the Democratic nomination for Michigan’s open Senate seat, the state’s Jewish Democrats are reflecting on whether the divisions El-Sayed’s candidacy brought to the fore can be bridged before November.
Jewish voters make up just 1.4% of the electorate in Michigan. But the community had become deeply invested in the race, with Jews both in fierce opposition and fiery support of El-Sayed in an election that had become a proxy fight over the Gaza war and the U.S.-Israel relationship.
Jewish former Michigan congressman Andy Levin, who had endorsed El-Sayed, believes Democrats will get behind the nominee in the interest of defeating Republican Mike Rogers — a race that could determine which party controls the Senate. Pre-primary polls found Rogers leading El-Sayed by single digits.
“Shame on any Jewish Democrat if they’re going to go vote for Mike Rogers and put our democracy at risk because they can’t find their way to supporting Abdul El-Sayed, who is such a brilliant person, just because he doesn’t share their exact beliefs on Israel and Palestine,” Levin told the Forward. “That’s ridiculous.”
Levin lost his Senate seat to Rep. Haley Stevens after heavy spending against him by AIPAC, the campaign fundraising group advocating for unrestricted U.S. aid to Israel. An AIPAC-associated super PAC spent some $32 million in a failed attempt to get Stevens the Senate nomination.
Stevens endorsed El-Sayed for the general election Wednesday morning. But some Jews who voted for Stevens see no possibility for reconciliation. Rabbi Asher Lopatin of the modern Orthodox synagogue Kehillat Etz Chayim in suburban Detroit had endorsed Stevens in the primary, alarmed by El-Sayed’s association with the controversial Twitch streamer Hasan Piker and condemnation of Israel as a genocidal and apartheid state.
In a TV interview Wednesday, El-Sayed used the term “bloodthirsty” to describe Israel.
“To have so many people vote for someone who is so hurtful to the Jewish community, the things that the Jewish community values — I think it’s depressing,” Lopatin told the Forward.
Lopatin has made up his mind that he will not vote for El-Sayed in the general election, but he also isn’t yet sold on Rogers, the Republican nominee.
“I have to study him more,” Lopatin said. “But I will not vote for Abdul El-Sayed, definitely, and I would tell people they should not.”
Lopatin said he wishes Stevens would condemn El-Sayed rather than endorse him.
Still, others see El-Sayed as the best candidate to face Rogers in the general — and don’t want him to pull back on the issues that won him the nomination. Barbara Weinberg Barefield, a photographer outside Detroit who helped organize the group Jews for Abdul, said she has confidence El-Sayed will win the general — attributing the close primary race partly to the influence of outside money supporting Stevens.
“He was able to win this election in the face of close to $70 million of outside funding going to bolster his opponent,” Weinberg Barefield said. “This election is showing us, and elections around the country are showing us, that elections are not to be bought — they’re to be earned.”
Roslyn Schindler, a retired professor who taught Holocaust studies at Wayne State University, was also among El-Sayed’s Jewish supporters, even as she disagreed with him on his lack of support for a two-state solution. She stressed the importance of beating Rogers in November irrespective of disagreements on Israel.
“My motto is and will be: vote blue, no matter who,” Schindler told the Forward. “I am hoping that all Democrats realize that to do otherwise will be self-destructive and just plain wrong.”
Others are taking a wait-and-see approach. Decky Alexander, chair of the Michigan Democratic Jewish Caucus — which endorsed Stevens in the primary — isn’t issuing an endorsement in the general election yet.
She said the close margin El-Sayed won by, about 15,000 votes, gives her hope that El-Sayed will see the need to unify his party. A start, she said, would be focusing less on AIPAC during his general election campaign.
“There’s a lot of opportunity on Abdul’s side to be a better bridge maker versus kind of a bridge burner,” Alexander told the Forward. “The cards are his. It’s his responsibility to initiate.”
In his election night speech, El-Sayed didn’t mention AIPAC by name, instead speaking more generally about getting money out of politics.
On Wednesday, he addressed Jewish Michiganders directly: “I want you to know that my commitment to your safety, my commitment to Jewish safety, is the same commitment that I have to the safety of my own daughters.”
The post On El-Sayed, Michigan’s Jewish Democrats aren’t all ready to unite behind nominee appeared first on The Forward.
