The first one-on-one Democratic Senate debate in Michigan revealed more than differences over taxes, campaign finance, or transparency. It exposed a growing trend in American politics: treating support for Israel not as a principled foreign policy position, but as evidence of corruption or divided loyalty.
That should concern every American.
During the debate, Abdul El-Sayed argued that if either Democratic Congresswoman Haley Stevens or Republican Mike Rogers wins the Senate seat, “either way Israel will win.” He pointed to Stevens’s support from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) as proof that she would be a “comfortable, reliable vote” for Israel.
This rhetoric fundamentally misunderstands both how American democracy works and why millions of Americans—including Christians, Jews, Democrats, Republicans, and independents—support the U.S.-Israel alliance.
Supporting Israel is not a special interest. It is a recognition that Israel is America’s closest democratic ally in the Middle East, a nation that shares our commitment to democratic governance, the rule of law, religious freedom, and innovation. The alliance is built on decades of shared strategic interests and common values—not on the influence of any single advocacy organization.
Every elected official receives support from groups that share their priorities. Environmental organizations support candidates who champion conservation. Labor unions back candidates who support workers. Business organizations contribute to candidates whose economic policies they favor. Pro-Israel organizations are no different. Their support reflects agreement on policy; it does not purchase votes.
Suggesting otherwise revives a troubling narrative that has too often been directed at supporters of the Jewish state.
History has shown the danger of implying that politicians who support Israel are somehow controlled by hidden interests or owe their allegiance elsewhere. Such accusations echo longstanding antisemitic tropes about Jewish influence and dual loyalty—ideas that have fueled discrimination for generations. Whether intended or not, public officials should avoid rhetoric that lends credibility to these harmful stereotypes.
The debate also highlighted a broader ideological shift within parts of the Democratic Party. Support for Israel, once one of the few genuinely bipartisan issues in Washington, has increasingly become a litmus test for some progressive activists. Candidates are now pressured not simply to criticize specific Israeli policies—which is entirely legitimate in a democracy—but to distance themselves from Israel altogether or question its legitimacy.
That is a dangerous direction.
Israel is not merely another country engaged in a territorial dispute. It is the world’s only Jewish state, surrounded by adversaries that have repeatedly sought its destruction. Since the October 7, 2023 Hamas massacre, Israel has continued to defend itself against terrorist organizations backed by Iran while working to secure the release of hostages and protect its citizens from ongoing attacks.
In that context, standing with Israel is not about endorsing every decision made by every Israeli government. Democracies welcome debate and criticism. Rather, it is about affirming Israel’s fundamental right to exist, defend itself, and live in peace alongside its neighbors.
That is why support for Israel remains bipartisan despite increasing political polarization. Americans understand that abandoning democratic allies in favor of terrorist narratives does not advance peace—it emboldens extremism.
Michigan, home to both vibrant Jewish and Arab American communities, deserves leaders who can engage these issues with honesty and nuance rather than reducing them to political slogans. Real leadership seeks dialogue, condemns antisemitism and anti-Arab hatred alike, and recognizes that lasting peace will require compromise from both Israelis and Palestinians—not the isolation of one side.
The United States has long benefited from its partnership with Israel through intelligence cooperation, technological innovation, military collaboration, and shared democratic values. Weakening that alliance would not make America safer or the Middle East more stable.
As voters evaluate the candidates seeking to represent Michigan in the U.S. Senate, they should ask a simple question: Should support for one of America’s closest allies be treated as a political liability?
The answer should be no.
Supporting Israel is not evidence of foreign influence. It is a reflection of a longstanding bipartisan conviction that democratic nations facing terrorism deserve America’s friendship, not suspicion.
Our political debates should focus on which policies best serve the American people—not on casting doubt upon those who stand with one of our nation’s most important allies.