Berl Falbaum
Some 600 Democratic Jewish “leaders,” who consider themselves “pro-Israel,” have distributed a letter in which they endorse the Michigan Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate Abdul El-Sayed.
That begs the question(s):
How much more “pro-Israel” can you get when you support a man who refuses to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist?
Is it possible to be more “pro-Israel” when you back El-Sayed who accepted $115,000 from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which has been designated a terrorist organization by the United Arab Emirates (UAE), a Muslim country? Some 40 of CAIR’s former and present officials reportedly have/had ties to Hamas.
Can you be more “pro-Israel” when you promote El-Sayed who accuses Israel of genocide?
What about El-Sayed’s campaigning with Hasan Piker, the streamer who spewed continuous anti-Jewish venom? Would these leaders have endorsed El-Sayed if, let’s say, he campaigned with David Duke, the former KKK grand wizard who founded the National Association for the Advancement of White People (NAAWP)? I don’t believe so — and rightly so.
Arlene Frank, a Jewish El-Sayed supporter, in a Deadline Detroit article, described his Israel policy as “thoughtful” and “nuanced.” I guess we should be thankful he isn’t more strident toward the Jewish state.
As they say, with “friends” like El-Sayed, who needs enemies.
In their statement, the signatories, said, “There are disagreements with El-Sayed on important issues, including aspects of his approach to Israel and the language used by some of his allies. These concerns remain serious for many of us, and we will vote for El-Sayed.”
Yes, they have “serious concerns” but they will vote for him. Now, who can argue with that logic? Makes perfect sense.
Among those who put his John Hancock on the document is retired Congressman Sander Levin. He advised us:
“I have been a strong proponent of a two-state solution to that crisis and he has not supported this approach. Yet, as I reflect, I must say that I have had disagreements with many colleagues in the House and Senate over the decades, but I have never failed to support the full Democratic ticket.”
We feel it’s somewhat insulting to have to explain to the good former congressman that there is a difference between disagreeing on such issues such as health care, military spending, taxes, etc., and embracing the Jew-hatred of your colleagues.
He ignores the fact that Michigan’s Democratic Attorney General Dana Nessel would not attend her own party’s convention because she, being a Jew, did not feel safe. Then she recommended that Jews should sacrifice themselves and the State of Israel in order to save the world.
Levin managed to condemn “terrible anti-Muslim bigotry” against El-Sayed — for which he should be commended — but he cannot bring himself to denounce antisemitism.
It is all hail to the party; party “?ber alles.” Do those two words sound familiar? They should. If not, look them up and you’ll find some troubling parallels in history.
The letter states, “…that the candidate’s positions on Israel and Iran are much less outside the mainstream of the contemporary foreign-policy debate than some of the charged rhetoric surrounding his candidacy might suggest.”
That’s exactly the point. Antisemitism has become mainstream while infecting the country, particularly the Democratic Party, and rather than censure the bigots and fight the hatred, they embrace it because it’s part of the “mainstream” giving the antisemites much-valued cover.
Such a letter, it should not be ignored, gives antisemites comfort throughout the world.
They can point to these leaders, Jews yet, as agreeing to all the defamatory charges made against Israel and deny their antisemitism.
Never mind that only Israeli artists, lecturers, and athletes are banned in many countries while representatives from Russia, North Korea, Iraq, Iran, China et al. — all freedom-loving democracies — escape any sanctions.
Meanwhile, about 20 Reform and Conservative rabbis issued an open letter of their own in which they make five “non-negotiable” demands. It does not name El-Sayed but it was clearly directed at him. The demands:
• Jewish safety, including for Zionist Jews, in Michigan and across America;
• The right to define their own Jewish identities;
• Jewish sovereignty in Israel;
• Welcoming their full participation in American political life; and
• An affirmative vision for a better future in the Middle East.
Hardly outlandish demands. These rights should not even have to be demanded. Indeed, it’s sad that political realities require reaffirmation to these principles from our political leaders.
This petition stated:
“Treating Israel’s existence as a live question; using eliminationist language to describe Israel; raising an objection to ‘ethnostates’ that is never raised about any other state; or vilifying Israel as uniquely malevolent, are variations of the same demand: the dismantlement of only 1 out of the 193 countries in the world.” It added:
“We reject cleverly worded arguments advanced to return the Jewish people to statelessness and powerlessness, a position that a supermajority of Jews, everywhere recognizes as genocide.”
El-Sayed’s campaign office was asked to comment on this petition but, according to news reports, it did not respond.
While the timing of the following may be coincidental, it is worth noting that the October issue of “The Atlantic,” a left of center magazine, has a story headlined, “The Jews Who Voted for Hitler.” Subtitled: “What Happened When Members of a Minority Community Cast Their Lot with a Political Leader who Despises them.”
And “Momentum,” also left of center, in quoting from a book by historian/author Philipp Nielson, wrote in its spring 2025 issue: “Conservative Jews had every intention [of] marching with Hitler’s regime.” (The magazine was co-founded by Elie Wiesel, an Auschwitz-Buchenwald survivor, author of 57 books, including the classic Night, human rights activist, and Nobel laureate.)
To emphasize, these are very liberal publications.
As I study and write about this campaign and the hatred directed at Jews here and globally, I can’t get the words “?ber alles” out of my head.
That begs the question(s):
How much more “pro-Israel” can you get when you support a man who refuses to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist?
Is it possible to be more “pro-Israel” when you back El-Sayed who accepted $115,000 from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which has been designated a terrorist organization by the United Arab Emirates (UAE), a Muslim country? Some 40 of CAIR’s former and present officials reportedly have/had ties to Hamas.
Can you be more “pro-Israel” when you promote El-Sayed who accuses Israel of genocide?
What about El-Sayed’s campaigning with Hasan Piker, the streamer who spewed continuous anti-Jewish venom? Would these leaders have endorsed El-Sayed if, let’s say, he campaigned with David Duke, the former KKK grand wizard who founded the National Association for the Advancement of White People (NAAWP)? I don’t believe so — and rightly so.
Arlene Frank, a Jewish El-Sayed supporter, in a Deadline Detroit article, described his Israel policy as “thoughtful” and “nuanced.” I guess we should be thankful he isn’t more strident toward the Jewish state.
As they say, with “friends” like El-Sayed, who needs enemies.
In their statement, the signatories, said, “There are disagreements with El-Sayed on important issues, including aspects of his approach to Israel and the language used by some of his allies. These concerns remain serious for many of us, and we will vote for El-Sayed.”
Yes, they have “serious concerns” but they will vote for him. Now, who can argue with that logic? Makes perfect sense.
Among those who put his John Hancock on the document is retired Congressman Sander Levin. He advised us:
“I have been a strong proponent of a two-state solution to that crisis and he has not supported this approach. Yet, as I reflect, I must say that I have had disagreements with many colleagues in the House and Senate over the decades, but I have never failed to support the full Democratic ticket.”
We feel it’s somewhat insulting to have to explain to the good former congressman that there is a difference between disagreeing on such issues such as health care, military spending, taxes, etc., and embracing the Jew-hatred of your colleagues.
He ignores the fact that Michigan’s Democratic Attorney General Dana Nessel would not attend her own party’s convention because she, being a Jew, did not feel safe. Then she recommended that Jews should sacrifice themselves and the State of Israel in order to save the world.
Levin managed to condemn “terrible anti-Muslim bigotry” against El-Sayed — for which he should be commended — but he cannot bring himself to denounce antisemitism.
It is all hail to the party; party “?ber alles.” Do those two words sound familiar? They should. If not, look them up and you’ll find some troubling parallels in history.
The letter states, “…that the candidate’s positions on Israel and Iran are much less outside the mainstream of the contemporary foreign-policy debate than some of the charged rhetoric surrounding his candidacy might suggest.”
That’s exactly the point. Antisemitism has become mainstream while infecting the country, particularly the Democratic Party, and rather than censure the bigots and fight the hatred, they embrace it because it’s part of the “mainstream” giving the antisemites much-valued cover.
Such a letter, it should not be ignored, gives antisemites comfort throughout the world.
They can point to these leaders, Jews yet, as agreeing to all the defamatory charges made against Israel and deny their antisemitism.
Never mind that only Israeli artists, lecturers, and athletes are banned in many countries while representatives from Russia, North Korea, Iraq, Iran, China et al. — all freedom-loving democracies — escape any sanctions.
Meanwhile, about 20 Reform and Conservative rabbis issued an open letter of their own in which they make five “non-negotiable” demands. It does not name El-Sayed but it was clearly directed at him. The demands:
• Jewish safety, including for Zionist Jews, in Michigan and across America;
• The right to define their own Jewish identities;
• Jewish sovereignty in Israel;
• Welcoming their full participation in American political life; and
• An affirmative vision for a better future in the Middle East.
Hardly outlandish demands. These rights should not even have to be demanded. Indeed, it’s sad that political realities require reaffirmation to these principles from our political leaders.
This petition stated:
“Treating Israel’s existence as a live question; using eliminationist language to describe Israel; raising an objection to ‘ethnostates’ that is never raised about any other state; or vilifying Israel as uniquely malevolent, are variations of the same demand: the dismantlement of only 1 out of the 193 countries in the world.” It added:
“We reject cleverly worded arguments advanced to return the Jewish people to statelessness and powerlessness, a position that a supermajority of Jews, everywhere recognizes as genocide.”
El-Sayed’s campaign office was asked to comment on this petition but, according to news reports, it did not respond.
While the timing of the following may be coincidental, it is worth noting that the October issue of “The Atlantic,” a left of center magazine, has a story headlined, “The Jews Who Voted for Hitler.” Subtitled: “What Happened When Members of a Minority Community Cast Their Lot with a Political Leader who Despises them.”
And “Momentum,” also left of center, in quoting from a book by historian/author Philipp Nielson, wrote in its spring 2025 issue: “Conservative Jews had every intention [of] marching with Hitler’s regime.” (The magazine was co-founded by Elie Wiesel, an Auschwitz-Buchenwald survivor, author of 57 books, including the classic Night, human rights activist, and Nobel laureate.)
To emphasize, these are very liberal publications.
As I study and write about this campaign and the hatred directed at Jews here and globally, I can’t get the words “?ber alles” out of my head.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
