Abdul El-Sayed is facing renewed criticism over his views on Israel after a tense debate with Republican rival Mike Rogers. The Democratic Senate nominee’s remarks have left some Jewish Democrats questioning whether they can support him, while political experts warn the exchange could create lasting problems for his campaign.
The controversy erupted Thursday night when El-Sayed said he would not regard Israel as an ally if its actions pulled the United States into wars it did not need to fight. He declined, however, to directly say whether Israel or Iran posed the greater threat to the US.
“He, himself, has created this predicament and he now comes off as confused and inauthentic,” Jeff McCall, a DePauw University professor, told The Post.
McCall said the debate demonstrated that El-Sayed was “failing the rhetorical challenge.”
“I don’t consider an ally a country that takes us to wars we don’t need to fight,” El-Sayed said during the Grand Rapids, Michigan, debate, which was hosted by NewsNation and Nexstar’s WOOD-TV.
The discussion followed Rogers’ criticism of El-Sayed for failing to issue a statement commemorating the third anniversary of Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, terrorist attack on Israel.
El-Sayed said he had condemned the attack, but accused Rogers of exploiting other people’s suffering as “political theater.”
His comments have revived concerns about El-Sayed’s standing with Jewish Democrats, including voters who have been hesitant to support the progressive candidate because of his positions on Israel.
The Michigan Democratic Jewish Caucus has not formally endorsed El-Sayed, even though it has backed other candidates in federal races.
The Post contacted the organization for comment but had not received a response.
El-Sayed also came under scrutiny after brushing aside questions about how he handled the Oct. 7 anniversary in the aftermath of the event.
David Dulio, a political science professor at Oakland University, told The Post that the debate carried unusual weight because El-Sayed is “arguably more to the left” on foreign policy than other prominent progressives, including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).
Dulio identified El-Sayed’s refusal to choose between Israel and Iran as the debate’s defining moment. The question asked which country represented the greater threat to the United States, but El-Sayed declined to provide a direct answer.
“Many Jewish Democrats in Michigan have been skeptical of El-Sayed and have expressed uncertainty about his candidacy,” Dulio said. “They were likely listening for a question like this to help them make up their minds.”
Dulio said Jewish Democrats could still influence the outcome, and that El-Sayed’s answer might produce a “wobble” in a campaign that had otherwise maintained momentum since the primaries.
“These positions could come back to haunt him,” Dulio said. “‘Dems for Rogers’ is real but we don’t know how big it is. I imagine this is something that’s exceedingly difficult to poll. Rogers will look to grow this group and I imagine Rogers’ campaign will have those debate clips in an ad very soon.”
A Democratic insider told The Post that winning over Jewish Democrats remains “an area of continued focus” for the El-Sayed campaign.
“There will still be Jewish Michiganders who don’t vote for him, but I think he’s reaching those who are open to voting for him,” the source said.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE: Whoops: Hamas Just Completely Nuked All Its Pathetic Apologists – NewsFinale
Former Republican Rep. Peter Meijer, an Iraq War veteran, also faulted El-Sayed’s response to the question about whether Israel or Iran posed the greater danger to the United States.
El-Sayed dismissed the question as “dumb” and a “ridiculous hypothetical.”
Meijer agreed that the question was poorly framed but argued that El-Sayed could have given a straightforward answer about the two countries’ relationship with the US.
“He criticized Mike Rogers for asking him to condemn Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, saying they’re scary words, but he hasn’t condemned them,” Meijer said on CNN.
Meijer added that El-Sayed’s response raised questions about whether his approach was political strategy, or reflected a deeper reluctance to address the issue.
“At a certain point, it goes from either this is political malpractice at best, or he [El-Sayed] can’t, or he won’t because of something deeper — and that’s far more troubling. And I just don’t get it because I don’t want to get it because it really is dark,” he added.
The controversy follows weeks of public disagreement among Jewish Democrats over whether El-Sayed’s positions on Israel should disqualify him from their support.
In an Oct. 6 MS NOW interview, one lifelong Democratic voter said her decision hinged on Israel.
“I just would love for him to make a definitive statement, like just saying ‘I would like everyone to know I support Israel,’” she said.
An Oct. 7th Republican Jewish Coalition ad featured lifelong Jewish Democrats in Michigan who said they “will never vote for Abdul El-Sayed.”
“I will never forgive El-Sayed for excusing the terrorists who caused this terrible incident,” one voter said.
Another criticized his response in the immediate aftermath of a Michigan synagogue attack, recalling his comment that “hurt people, hurt people.”
“And he is giving permission for another person to do it again,” the voter said.
El-Sayed was also pressed by reporters Friday about whether he was still mourning the death of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. He declined to discuss the subject, telling reporters he was “not interested in talking about this” and urged them to ask about health care instead.
At the beginning of El-Sayed’s Senate bid, he campaigned more heavily on foreign affairs.
McCall said that given El-Sayed’s prior statements, it would seem “unlikely” for him to modify his rhetoric “enough to ease the minds of supporters of Israel.”
During Thursday’s debate, El-Sayed reiterated that he does not want US tax dollars funding weapons for foreign countries, including Israel. He also said he would not support being drawn into a war with Iran.
Rogers, meanwhile, defended Israel’s right to exist and protect itself, arguing that the US should stand by the Jewish state.