The Jewish Dilemma

Along with Benjamin Netanyahu, Gadi Eisenkot and possibly Mark Zuckerberg, Haley Stevens is about to become one of the most important Jews in the world. Stevens is not competing to be Israel’s prime minister, of course, nor is she a billionaire social media entrepreneur. She is a defeated candidate for U.S. Senate from the state of Michigan, the fiancé of a Jewish man who is expected to convert for their marriage, and a lame-duck member of Congress who might have been expelled by the House Democratic Caucus by the time you read this.

But her astounding decision to endorse Republican Senate candidate Mike Rogers over fellow Democrat Abdul El-Sayed less than 72 hours before the polls closed on election night sent shock waves across the American political landscape, with repercussions far beyond her state and ramifications for the 2028 presidential campaign and far into the future. When Stevens crossed party lines to support the GOP nominee at the close of a midterm election in which majority control of Congress hung in the balance, she crystallized a set of choices for American Jewish voters who have spent the last 37 months attempting to navigate a newly fraught and barely recognizable political and cultural environment created in the aftermath of the Hamas terrorist attacks that triggered the Gaza War.

As most readers of this publication and this column know, El-Sayed is an ardent antizionist at best, and an antisemite at worst. His refusal to affirm Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state was a subject of heated debate with Stevens throughout the primary and continued to be a point of contention throughout the fall campaign.

But given his victory over Stevens’ opposition, the political consequences of his positions are no longer theoretical. His campaign forced Jewish Democrats – in Michigan and cross the country – to confront a predicament that I described immediately after his primary victory as being caught “between the devil and the deep blue sea.”

Before the invention of the steam engine, when ocean travel relied on sails and wind, sailors used that expression to describe a choice between dangerous and disastrous alternatives. For Jewish Democrats, the metaphor became an increasingly uncomfortable description of the 2026 Michigan Senate campaign, one which become even more difficult in the years ahead.

The dilemma that preceded Stevens’ endorsement

When El-Sayed defeated Stevens in the Democratic primary, Jewish voters faced a question that had no easy answer. They could support a Democratic nominee whose positions on Israel and whose political associations raised serious concerns within the Jewish community, or they could consider voting for Mike Rogers, a Republican whose party and presidential standard-bearer represent a very different set of political priorities frequently incompatible with their own.

The Democratic Party has been the political home of a substantial majority of American Jewish voters for generations. Its positions on civil rights, religious pluralism, immigration and reproductive rights have generally aligned with the political preferences of much of the Jewish community. Support for Israel has historically been another important component of that relationship, although Jewish voters have rarely agreed uniformly about Israeli governments, military operations or the appropriate role of American assistance.

El-Sayed’s primary victory presented an unusually difficult choice. Jewish voters who opposed Trump and wanted Democrats to regain control of the Senate were being asked to support a candidate whose views on the Jewish state were fundamentally different from those of the party’s traditional pro-Israel wing.

The problem was not simply that El-Sayed disagrees with Benjamin Netanyahu. Many American  Jews, and a large majority of Democratic voters, oppose Netanyahu’s government. The more fundamental disagreement concerned whether Israel should continue to exist as a Jewish state and what that principle means for Jewish national self-determination. His refusal to affirm Israel’s right to exist specifically as a Jewish state has left even many otherwise progressive Jewish voters questioning whether his conception of equality adequately recognizes the historical and national claims of the Jewish people.

This is not an abstract constitutional argument. Israel’s existence as a Jewish state is widely understood as a safeguard against the historical vulnerability of a people that has experienced centuries of persecution, expulsion and genocide. And one need not endorse every action of the Israeli government to recognize the significance of that principle.

The Hasan Piker Problem 

The controversy over progressive political streamer Hasan Piker may have been the most telling flashpoint regarding El-Sayed’s candidacy. Piker has asserted that America deserved the Sept. 11 attacks and that Hamas was preferable to Israel. He also suggested that Jewish Americans’ political identification with Israel could provoke violence against Jews in the United States.

El-Sayed campaigned with Piker during the Democratic primary, benefiting from his considerable reach among younger progressive voters. When questioned about the streamer’s remarks, El-Sayed said Piker did not speak for his campaign and distanced himself from particular comments.

But distancing oneself from a political ally’s statements is not the same as establishing a meaningful boundary. For Stevens and other Jewish Democrats, the question was whether El-Sayed was willing to acknowledge that some political rhetoric crosses a line, even when it comes from someone who shares his opposition to Israeli policy.

This controversy is not limited to El-Sayed and Piker. The broader debate concerns the normalization of rhetoric that treats American Jews as collectively responsible for Israel or suggests that Jewish identification with Israel creates a legitimate justification for hostility toward Jews.

There is a distinction between criticizing the political influence of pro-Israel organizations, opposing American military assistance and questioning the policies of a foreign government, on one hand, and assigning collective responsibility to Jewish Americans, on the other.

El-Sayed’s insistence that Piker did not speak for his campaign addressed one exceedingly small part of the problem. But his continued association with the streamer, and the controversy that accompanied their political appearances, left many Jewish voters unconvinced.

The issue became especially important after the primary, when El-Sayed needed to broaden his coalition beyond the progressive voters who had supported him against Stevens.

Stevens makes her choice

For several months after losing the primary, Stevens appeared prepared to put her differences with El-Sayed aside. She endorsed the Democratic nominee and indicated that she would support his campaign, even as she continued to express reservations about his positions on Israel.

That uneasy arrangement collapsed during the final days of the campaign.

The immediate dispute involved an advertisement from Rebellion PAC that connected American assistance to Israel with the rising cost of household necessities. Stevens argued that the advertisement reflected an underlying campaign message that blamed Israel for Michigan’s economic difficulties. She demanded that El-Sayed condemn it and distance himself from its contents.

El-Sayed said the advertisement had not been produced by his campaign and after several days of evasion, eventually expressed disagreement with its message. But the disagreement became part of a much larger confrontation over Israel, Jewish voters and the nature of the Democratic coalition.

The planned joint appearance by Stevens and El-Sayed at a unity rally the Sunday before the election became increasingly contentious. Stevens ultimately appeared alongside Rogers that morning and announced that she would vote for the Republican.

Her explanation, which came the day after El-Sayed had finally disagreed with the ad’s anti-Israel content, included both policy disagreements and personal grievances. She said that El-Sayed had made clear that she was no longer welcome in his campaign and that she could not support him under those circumstances.

The distinction is important. She was not merely refusing to campaign for El-Sayed. She was actively encouraging voters to support the Republican candidate, an extraordinary step for a sitting Democratic member of Congress. Her endorsement therefore transformed a dispute within the Democratic Party into an all-out political brawl.

The political cost of the impossible choice

The consequences extend far beyond this single Michigan contest. El-Sayed’s election will demonstrate that a candidate with his approach to Zionism and the U.S.-Israel relationship can prevail in a competitive Democratic primary and general election in a major battleground state. It will also give the antizionist wing of the Democratic Party a prominent national platform as the party begins preparing for the 2028 presidential primaries.

But the broader question is unavoidable: Can the Democratic Party maintain its traditional relationship with Jewish voters while accommodating a progressive movement increasingly skeptical of Zionism and American support for Israel?

That question will not be answered by the outcome of one Senate race. It will be answered by the positions Democratic leaders take, the candidates they nominate and the standards they establish for political rhetoric about Jews and Israel.

Republicans can point to El-Sayed’s statements and associations as evidence of a growing divide between the Democratic Party and a traditionally reliable Democratic constituency. But the GOP should not assume that disagreement with El-Sayed automatically translates into support for their party. Jewish Democrats can be deeply concerned about antisemitism and Israel while remaining opposed to Trump’s priorities.

Between the devil and the deep blue sea

Most Democrats who oppose Trump regard his presidency as a serious threat to the country’s democratic institutions. Many Jewish voters who oppose El-Sayed’s positions regard his approach to Zionism and his associations as a serious challenge to their community’s security and political legitimacy.

Those concerns are not mutually exclusive. A voter can believe both things simultaneously.

That is precisely why Stevens’ endorsement generated such an extraordinary reaction. She has forced Democratic leaders to confront a problem that they might otherwise have preferred to manage quietly: the growing distance between the party’s traditional pro-Israel constituency and an increasingly influential progressive movement that questions the foundations of the American-Israeli relationship.

But her decision also leaves Jewish Democrats with a difficult question of their own. Is an endorsement of a Republican who represents many of the policies they oppose an acceptable response to a Democratic nominee whose views on Israel they find deeply troubling?

There is no universal answer. Jewish voters will continue to weigh these considerations differently, depending on their views of Trump, El-Sayed, Israel and the broader political direction of the country. But Jewish Democrats should not be forced to choose between their commitment to the Democratic Party and their commitment to Jewish identity and security.

El-Sayed had an opportunity after the primary to demonstrate that he understood the concerns of Jewish Democrats who had supported Stevens. His statements about the preschool attack, his association with Piker and his approach to the question of Israel’s existence became tests of whether he could broaden his appeal without abandoning his political convictions. He failed those tests. The question going forward is whether he will adjust his approach to these challenges more effectively as a Senator than as a candidate. 

Stevens, meanwhile, has made a choice that carries consequences far beyond her own political career. Her endorsement has turned a potentially manageable intraparty disagreement into an incendiary national debate about the future of Jewish participation in Democratic politics.

Stevens has been an imperfect and often awkward narrator for this discussion. But the question now extends well beyond Michigan. Can the Democratic Party remain a political home for Jews who believe in progressive domestic politics, Palestinian rights and Israel’s continued existence as a Jewish state? Can it accommodate those commitments without demanding that one be sacrificed to accommodate another?

And can its candidates recognize that the security of Jewish Americans is not a negotiable component of their political identity?

El-Sayed was the most visible of the anti-Israel candidates on the ballot Tuesday night, but he was far from alone. Democratic Socialist candidates won several House races and appear to be on the verge of winning the mayor’s offices in Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. The ADL issued statements condemning more than half a dozen members of Congress for their strong opposition to the Jewish state and statements promoting the worst type of antisemitism. By January, Capitol Hill will house the most anti-Israel Congress since 1948.

The 2028 implications

Stevens’ endorsement has also created a preview of the debate that Democratic presidential candidates will confront in 2028. The party’s pro-Israel constituency is not disappearing. Nor is the progressive movement’s opposition to traditional American policy toward Israel likely to recede. 

The Stevens episode raises questions about the relationship between the Democratic establishment and the party’s progressive base. If Democratic leaders conclude that El-Sayed’s candidacy demonstrates the need to reconsider the party’s approach to Israel, they will face resistance from party members who value and want to maintain the U.S.-Israel relationship. If they ignore the concerns of Jewish Democrats, they risk further alienating a constituency that has historically been an important part of the party’s electoral and institutional coalition.

The Republicans face a different but related challenge. Support for Israel cannot be the only measure of a party’s relationship with American Jews. The persistence of antisemitism on the political right, the treatment of religious and ethnic minorities and the protection of democratic institutions remain important considerations for Jewish voters. And even GOP sentiments on Israel are in flux. The growing number of anti-Israel voices on the right cannot be overlooked, and Trump acknowledged their emerging strength in his Election Day announcement to eliminate U..S. military aid to Israel. 

Young Republicans are much more likely to side against the Jewish state, and many party leaders will blame the Iran war and Netanyahu’s role in it as a primary cause of Tuesday’s election results. Conservative strategists see that El-Sayed performed exceptionally well in rural conservative bastions in northern Michigan. Many will see a more confrontational approach against Israel as a way to win these voters back. JD Vance, who is already actively courting anti-Israel Republicans for his potential presidential bid, made this assertion on Wednesday morning, all but guaranteeing that Iran and therefore Israel will be at the center of the GOP presidential contest as well. More alarmingly, Vance’s statement also referenced the need to “change our relationship with Israel.

The central issue is not whether Jewish voters should support Democrats or Republicans. It is whether either party can demonstrate that Jewish security, Jewish identity and Jewish self-determination are compatible with its broader political agenda.

Divisions over Israel and the Middle East will grow even more pronounced in the years ahead. The 2028 presidential primary season will almost certainly be marked by the continuation of these deep and uncomfortable disagreements. And these questions will shape both Democratic and Republican internal debates, the next presidential campaign and the relationship between American Jews and both major political parties for years to come.

Next week: how can the Jewish community prepare for such a new and unfamiliar set of political challenges?

Dan Schnur is the U.S. Politics Editor for the Jewish Journal. He teaches courses in politics, communications, and leadership at UC Berkeley, USC and Pepperdine. He hosts the monthly webinar “The Dan Schnur Political Report” for the Los Angeles World Affairs Council & Town Hall. Follow Dan’s work at www.danschnurpolitics.com.