Who Speaks for Jewish Democrats? Michigan Is About To Decide

Michigan Democrats will cast their ballots to choose a Senate nominee on Tuesday, and this primary has become a pivotal test of how the party navigates the intersection of Israel, Jewish identity, security concerns, and political influence. The race between progressive health official Abdul El-Sayed and Representative Haley Stevens is often viewed as a clash between the Democratic party's left flank and its establishment.

However, a closer look reveals a more complex dynamic, as competing centers of pro-Israel and Jewish power in the Democratic party come into focus.

A central element of the Michigan primary is the role of AIPAC and its affiliated super PAC, the United Democracy Project, which has been actively backing Stevens and opposing El-Sayed. The group's heavy investment in the race – over $30 million – goes beyond a simple attempt to sway the outcome of a single Senate seat. It represents an assertion by organized pro-Israel institutions that they still hold sway and legitimacy in shaping Democratic policy toward Israel.

A victory for Stevens could strengthen AIPAC's position, while an El-Sayed win would suggest that the group may face diminishing influence in major Democratic races.

El-Sayed has made challenging AIPAC a cornerstone of his campaign. In a recent debate, he repeatedly criticized the group's involvement and argued that its spending had become a substitute for Stevens' own political appeal. He contends that while AIPAC may have the financial clout to shape the race, it does not possess the authority to define Jewish interests or dictate the Democratic Party's stance on Israel.

In contrast, Stevens has not focused her campaign exclusively on Israel; rather, she emphasizes domestic issues such as manufacturing, economic stability, and opposition to President Donald Trump. However, Israel's growing presence in the race has made it a central point of contention.

This tension became evident during a Detroit church service, where a parishioner jokingly suggested that Stevens challenge a "Muslim's butt." Stevens swiftly responded, "We're here for Michigan." The viral exchange highlights the false dichotomy that supporting Israel equates to opposing Muslims, while defending Muslims and Palestinians means opposing Jews.

Stevens presents herself as a steadfast supporter of Israel who is also willing to criticize its government, presenting a liberal Zionist perspective that remains influential among Jewish Democrats. She advocates for a two-state solution and criticizes Netanyahu's leadership while maintaining Israel's legitimacy.

However, AIPAC's endorsement can complicate Stevens' stance with voters, as the group's backing blurs the lines between her criticism of Netanyahu and an alliance with an organization that seeks to maintain a pro-Israel majority in Congress. Conversely, Stevens can argue that El-Sayed's attacks on the pro-Israel organization undermine legitimate support for Israel and suggest that unsupported opposition is an asset in major Democratic races.

The disagreement between AIPAC and its critics is not solely about policy, but also about the legitimacy of different forms of organized power in the Democratic party. AIPAC and similar pro-Israel institutions argue that their established role in defending the U.S.-Israel alliance is crucial. Conversely, liberal Zionists contend that support for Israel can coexist with sharp criticism of Netanyahu and the pursuit of a two-state solution.

Jewish progressives reject AIPAC's influence, asserting that Jewish values often require opposition to Israeli military policies and to organizations they believe limit debate within the party. Additionally, elected Democrats like Stevens argue that their authority stems from winning elections and representing their constituents, rather than from communal institutions.

El-Sayed's candidacy stands apart from these various camps. As a Muslim candidate backed by Arab American and progressive voters, he challenges the legitimacy of all four competing claims to authority. He insists that no single advocacy group, ideological movement, or elected official has the exclusive right to define Democratic policy on Israel. Instead, he argues that Jewish Democratic politics have become increasingly fragmented, with at least four distinct claims to power and influence.