The winner of this week’s Democratic primary, Abdul El-Sayed, provokes heated emotions on both sides of a real divide in the Party. Many Jewish Democrats who care deeply about Israel are unsettled by progressive critiques of the country and feel genuine fear and trepidation. Meanwhile, many progressive pro-Palestinian activists are energized and hopeful.
Unless the two communities quickly find a way to engage constructively, the only beneficiaries will be Mike Rogers – the Republican nominee – and Donald Trump.
Jewish Americans are legitimately frightened by rising antisemitism in the United States today. Their fear is neither imagined nor manufactured. It’s grounded in centuries of painful history and reinforced by present-day events such as the assault on Temple Israel in West Bloomfield Township.
Some of the language used and positions taken in the most uncompromising corners of the pro-Palestinian movement have intensified those fears. There’s particular concern when people sense an unwillingness to unequivocally reject or condemn the atrocities committed on October 7 or when they hear rhetoric that seems to condone or encourage violence.
The stakes couldn’t be higher. This one seat could determine whether there is a meaningful check in the upper chamber on the last two years of the Trump administration. The outcome will affect matters of war and peace, federal spending, voting rights, Cabinet confirmations and – perhaps most significantly – the next vacancy on the Supreme Court.
That’s why building a bridge across the Democratic divide on Israel-Palestine is one of the most important political tasks facing the party in the next ninety days. It will require work from everyone – the candidate, the Jewish community and the Democratic Party itself.
A candidate seeking to represent all Michiganders has to take the concerns of Jewish constituents seriously. El-Sayed would be well served to spend serious time listening to Jewish communities and hearing directly about their feelings of vulnerability.
Listening is only part of it. He will need to make clear in words and in actions that there is no place for antisemitism in his campaign – and that there is a place for Jews who care about Israel in his coalition.
He has started down that path. His election night remarks were a good beginning, affirming that his “commitment to your safety, my commitment to Jewish safety, is the same commitment that I have to the safety of my own daughters.” The work ahead must build on and extend those commitments.
Arab American, Muslim American and Palestinian American communities have themselves experienced intolerable levels of hatred, discrimination and violence in recent years in the United States.
And, beyond that, many families in Michigan have direct ties to Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon. Their families too know real suffering – not just as history, but as present-day reality.
If the Jewish community asks others to understand our fears, we have an obligation to demonstrate the same openness to theirs. Jewish communal activists and leaders have not always approached those communities with the same understanding we are asking for ourselves.
Already in this campaign, the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee has begun running ads referring to “Abdulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed.” Rogers has already made unfounded suggestions that El-Sayed believes America somehow deserved the attacks on 9/11. These tactics amount to precisely the kind of Islamophobia that Muslim Americans in public life consistently face – and Jewish community leaders need to stand up vocally against such blatant bigotry.
Demonstrating empathy does not require abandoning deeply held convictions or overlooking genuine disagreements about history or politics. But political coalitions that grow and endure can only be built when we join with those with whom we have real – even profound – disagreements.
Party leaders cannot simply hope these divisions disappear after the primary. They must actively ensure the party is big enough for people who disagree passionately about Israel and Palestine. This issue can’t become a litmus test for admission to the Democratic tent.
What should define the Democratic tent is an agreement on key commitments: defending democracy, making health care more affordable, building an economy that works for working Americans and resisting authoritarianism.
Those are the commitments that should define today’s Democratic coalition – not unanimity on every aspect of Israel-Palestine policy. The Democratic Party must make crystal clear there is room inside for both pro-Israel and pro-Palestine activists.
Republicans have every incentive to magnify and exploit Democratic divisions over Israel. They recognize how effective it is as a wedge to divide the pro-democracy coalition.
Let’s not hand them that victory.
Over the next ninety days, let’s lower the temperature and each find a way to play a productive role in building a winning coalition. Candidates need to listen and reassure. Community leaders should engage in genuine dialogue and hear the pain of the other. Activists should demonstrate the empathy they ask of others. And voters should remember what is ultimately at stake.
We can’t resolve every disagreement in the Democratic coalition over Israel and Palestine before Election Day. But if people of good faith, carrying very different histories and very different pain, can find a way to build trust without demanding ideological uniformity, they can assemble the coalition needed to win.
If we build this bridge, Democrats won’t just win a Senate seat. We’ll demonstrate that Americans who disagree deeply about Israel and Palestine can still work together on everything else that matters to us. At this political moment, that may be the most important victory of all.
If you appreciate the work J Street does, I hope you’ll consider making a grassroots contribution to ensure our voice is heard.
No posts
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.