Newsweek/Getty
By Anna Rahmanan
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
Michigan Democrats will choose their Senate nominee on Tuesday in a primary that has become almost a direct test of Israel’s place in the party and of who has the authority to turn Jewish identity, security and political influence into Democratic policy.
The contest between progressive former health official Abdul El-Sayed and Representative Haley Stevens is often described as another battle between the Democratic left flank and the establishment. Although that’s true on the surface, a closer inspection of the dynamics in the race highlights the divide that runs among competing centers of pro-Israel and Jewish Democratic power: AIPAC and its donors, liberal Zionists critical to Benjamin Netanyahu, Jewish progressives who reject the role of AIPAC and already-elected Democrats who still treat support for Israel as part of the party’s mainstream inheritance.
Can AIPAC Still Speak for Jewish Democrats?
One of the keys in the Michigan primary is how AIPAC is spending its money, as its intervention turns the race into more than a contest between the two candidates, bringing the Democratic Party's argument over Israel—and over who can most claim to represent Jewish political interests—directly to the front of the campaign.
Read More on News
The United Democracy Project, the super PAC affiliated with AIPAC, has spent heavily to back Stevens and oppose El-Sayed. An FEC filing from July showed nearly $15 million in reported independent expenditures tied to the race at that stage, while subsequent reporting has placed the group’s total investment above $30 million.
AIPAC says its political mission is to elect candidates who will strengthen the U.S.-Israel relationship and defeat those that it considers hostile to it. Its spending in Michigan represents more than an attempt to win one Senate seat: It is an assertion that organized pro-Israel institutions still have the power and legitimacy to define acceptable Democratic policy toward Israel.
Related Story
The UN Is Hiring a Captain for a Sinking Ship
A Stevens victory would strengthen AIPAC's stake, but an El-Sayed win would suggest that opposition to the group could now become an asset in major Democratic races.
El-Sayed has made challenging AIPAC central to his campaign. During the final debate between the candidates, he repeatedly attacked AIPAC’s involvement and argued that its spending had become a substitute for Stevens’ own political appeal.
His argument links Israel policy to a broader progressive critique of concentrated donor power. El-Sayed’s posture is that AIPAC may have the money to shape a race, but that does not give it the authority to define Jewish interests or determine the Democratic Party’s position on Israel.
Stevens Offers a Different Pro-Israel Politics
Stevens has not built her campaign solely focused on Israel. Her campaign emphasizes domestic priorities—like manufacturing, economic security and opposition to President Donald Trump—while prominent Michigan and national Democrats have endorsed her as the more experienced and electable candidate.
Despite that, Israel has increasingly defined the contest.
That tension surfaced at a Detroit church service, where a parishioner told Stevens, “We know you’re gonna kick that Muslim’s butt.” Stevens quickly pushed back, saying, “We’re here for Michigan.” The viral exchange exposed the false binary she must resist: that supporting Israel means opposing Muslims, while defending Muslims and Palestinians means opposing Jews.
Stevens presents herself as a durable supporter of Israel who is also willing to speak out against its government. In one debate, she called Netanyahu a danger to Jews while defending Israel’s legitimacy and the goal of a two-state solution.
At the final debate, she said, “I want to see long-term peace. I want to see a two-state solution.”
That position reflects a liberal Zionist tradition that remains influential among Jewish Democrats: Israel’s existence and security are treated as nonnegotiable, while Netanyahu’s leadership and the conduct of the war can be sharply criticized.
Stevens’ difficulty is that AIPAC’s support can blur those distinctions with voters. The group’s intervention allows El-Sayed to portray her criticism of Netanyahu as secondary to an alliance with an organization that seeks to keep Congress firmly pro-Israel.
Stevens, meanwhile, can argue that El-Sayed’s attacks collapse legitimate support for Israel into a story of corrupt influence. Supporters of AIPAC would add that the group is exercising the same political rights as labor unions, environmental organizations and progressive super PACs: raising money, backing candidates and trying to persuade voters.
The disagreement is therefore partly about policy, but also about which forms of organized power Democrats consider legitimate—both currently and going forward.
Who Speaks for Jewish Democrats?
Neither AIPAC nor its critics can plausibly claim to speak for Jewish voters as a whole. If anything, the Michigan primary illustrates just how fragmented Jewish Democratic politics has become, with at least four competing claims to authority.
The first comes from AIPAC and the broader pro-Israel establishment, which argues that longstanding institutions and political organizations are best placed to defend the U.S.-Israel alliance. The second comes from liberal Zionists, who maintain that support for Israel is compatible with sharp criticism of Netanyahu and support for a two-state solution. The third comes from Jewish progressives who reject AIPAC's influence, arguing that Jewish values can require opposition to Israeli military policy and to organizations they believe narrow debate within the Democratic Party. The fourth comes from elected Democrats such as Stevens, whose claim to authority rests not on communal institutions but on winning elections and representing voters.
El-Sayed does not slot into any of those camps. As a Muslim candidate backed by many Arab American and progressive voters, he is challenging the legitimacy of all four. He argues that no advocacy group, ideological movement or elected official has a special claim to define what Democratic policy on Israel should be. Instead, he argues that it should emerge through open debate rather than be shaped by organizations with the money to police the party's boundaries.
His candidacy asks a different question from Stevens'.
It asks whether Democrats are prepared to reject the idea that any one faction can speak with authority on Israel. Stevens' campaign, by contrast, tests whether Democrats can preserve a broadly pro-Israel consensus while adapting it to growing criticism of Netanyahu and the war in Gaza.
What Michigan Could Reveal
The primary will not settle the Democratic Party’s argument over Israel, but it could reveal which coalition currently has the stronger hand.
For AIPAC and its allies, the question is whether money, endorsements and an electability message can still set the limits of Democratic debate in a swing state. For El-Sayed and the anti-AIPAC left, the test is whether direct confrontation with the pro-Israel establishment can now build a winning statewide coalition rather than merely energize a faction.
The general election in November will provide a second test. Michigan remains competitive, and the Democratic nominee is expected to face Republican Mike Rogers in a race with implications for control of the Senate. A primary message that mobilizes progressive voters may prove harder to sustain among independents or it may energize constituencies that conventional Democrats have struggled to reach.
The most important result for Democrats may therefore be measured beyond the vote count.
Michigan is forcing Democrats to decide whether support for Israel remains a shared party principle, one interest among many or a dividing line that determines who belongs in the coalition. It is also forcing Jewish Democrats and pro-Israel institutions to confront a harder question: whether political authority comes from communal organizations, elected representatives, moral argument or voters themselves.
Tuesday’s winner will become a Senate candidate, but the factions behind the candidates will reveal something larger: the right to say what Democratic support for Israel looks like now.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines