Fairly or not, AIPAC − the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee − has become a dirty little acronym for many in Democratic politics that’s defining the battle for the party’s nomination for an open U.S. Senate seat in Michigan.
How that plays out, and to whose benefit, may go a long way to determining whether Democrats will maintain a 26-year hold on Michigan’s two U.S. Senate seats.
“This is the election where the factions in the Democratic base can get exposed,” said David Dulio, director of the Center for Civic Involvement at Oakland University. “This is as competitive a race as we’re going to see in a long time.”
You probably know the setup: U.S. Rep. Haley Stevens of Birmingham, state Sen. Mallory McMorrow of Royal Oak and former Wayne County and Detroit health director Abdul El-Sayed of Ann Arbor are running in a Democratic nomination race that is neck-and-neck to replace U.S. Sen. Gary Peters. Meanwhile, the likely Republican nominee, former U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers of White Lake, who came within a hair of winning an open U.S. Senate seat two years ago, is sitting on a mountain of cash and support as Democrats beat on each other ahead of the Aug. 4 primary.
To date, much of the back-and-forth has been waged in national publications relying on insinuations that tell you less about what kind of senator any of them might be and more about what they wrote on X a decade ago or if it’s fair for a medical school grad who doesn’t practice to be characterized as a physician.
But infighting over AIPAC, a staunchly pro-Israeli group − and who it supports, who it doesn’t, what that stands for and why − matters. In a state as politically capacious and capricious, not to mention as crucial, as Michigan, it could be what the race turns on.
Primary shines bright light on party division
In April, at the Michigan Democratic Party’s convention, divisions over U.S. support for Israel and Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza and now (with U.S. support) against Iran were in full bloom. Moderate speakers were jeered as a mostly younger crowd of progressives filled the hall, securing nominations to some down-ballot, non-primary seats for candidates others found unacceptable, and in some cases, outright antisemitic.
It led to a divergence of opinions about the party’s direction.
U.S. Rep. Rashida Tlaib, a Palestinian-American and progressive stalwart from Detroit who is also a staunch critic of Israel, called the convention “electric.” U.S. Rep. Kristen McDonald Rivet of Bay City, a moderate from a swing district, said it was unacceptable.
Which brings us back to AIPAC, a U.S-based organization and related political action committee of some 6.5 million supporters that openly lobbies for continued U.S. backing of Israel, despite what its many critics see as that country’s disproportionate ruthlessness (if not war crimes) toward the Palestinians and other (often equally hostile if not violently aggressive toward Israel) neighbors in the Middle East.
Stevens is backed by AIPAC. El-Sayed is hypercritical of Israeli policies and criticized by it (and some say too close with, and receiving support from, antisemites). McMorrow has also criticized Israel while being questioned on whether she courted AIPAC herself.
Candidates differ on AIPAC, Israel
Stevens, who has been in Congress since 2019, is a staunch supporter of U.S. backing for Israel, though it wasn’t much in the public eye until 2022, when Stevens (who is not Jewish) beat U.S. Rep. Andy Levin of Bloomfield Township (who is) in a primary with a lot of financial help from, you guessed it, AIPAC.
Stevens doesn’t discuss her support from AIPAC despite its being the elephant in the room that is the Democratic nomination race.
She also deflected questions from the Free Press about what limits, if any, she would put on U.S. support for Israel. “As I’ve said, my goal is that we have long-lasting peace where Israelis and Palestinians can live with dignity and security,” she said, adding that she has not always agreed with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s actions.
El-Sayed, a Muslim and the child of Egyptian immigrants, is the most unabashedly critical of Israel and U.S. support, saying he believes funding should instead be spent at home to fight poverty and provide health care. But he has also been criticized for appearing with people − like Internet influencer Hasan Piker − who some argue have veered into antisemitic language. (Piker denies this, saying his criticisms have been toward Israel, not Jewish people.)
El-Sayed has called Israel’s actions in Gaza “evil” and “genocide.” He has denounced AIPAC’s involvement in politics. On the other hand, he has also said he loves Judaism and the Jewish people. “AIPAC and Israel are not the same as Judaism and the Jewish people… The single most dangerous thing they’ve tried to tell us is somehow they can extend the definition of antisemitism to include a foreign government and its leaders. I call bulls—,” he said.
El-Sayed told the Free Press he doesn’t support “any type of weapons sales to foreign governments that have repeatedly violated human rights and international law, especially governments that have committed genocide and maintained apartheid.” He said he wants Palestinians and Israelis alike to have “freedom, dignity and self-determination.”
As for McMorrow, her campaign noted her support for a ban on offensive weapons being provided to Israel (which AIPAC criticized her for) and her opposition to Trump and Israel’s war in Iran. (Stevens criticized the war as well, as has El-Sayed.) McMorrow also has said the counteroffensive in Gaza met the definition of a genocide, though she added she didn’t want “to get lost in, ‘do you agree with this definition or not?’”
She has said she won’t support New York Sen. Chuck Schumer to be the Senate Democratic Leader if elected, though she hasn’t linked that to Schumer’s historically close but recently more strained relationship with AIPAC. She has said, contrary to AIPAC and Netanyahu’s view, that “the path to lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians lies in a two-state solution.”
McMorrow − who says Israel must halt sporadic incursions into Gaza and the West Bank and that Hamas must demonstrate its own commitment to peace in the region − still faces some questions about whether she sought AIPAC’s support early in the campaign, though she says she believes the organization has become more radical and that she has not, and will not, accept AIPAC support. McMorrow does have the endorsement of J Street, an organization that supports continued aid for Israel to protect itself but also a phasing out of military subsidies.
Ad brings AIPAC back to center stage
So why is this coming up now? Recently, McMorrow accused Stevens of being compromised on whether she is appropriately committed to dismantling the policies of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, under Trump. Stevens’ campaign shot out a plea for help from funders, saying she was being targeted unfairly. A group no one had heard of before dropped $5 million in TV ads defending Stevens on ICE.
El-Sayed and others intimated the group (calling itself the Center for Democratic Priorities, with an executive, John Jones, who has the same name of someone who apparently led an AIPAC-funded Super PAC in Michigan two years ago) was AIPAC riding to Stevens’ rescue.
AIPAC has said on the record it wasn’t them. But without any transparency as to who is behind the group − which, by the way, runs counter to the spirit if not the text of campaign finance reform laws Stevens has cosponsored − it’s possible some group tangentially linked with AIPAC or one of its affiliated organizations or backers could be connected. It’s unclear who else it would be (though if it is someone unaffiliated with AIPAC it would be another dramatic change in this race.)
Given the rules allowing some groups to shield funders or let them go unreported for weeks or months, it’s unclear if or when it may ever be known. But it’s relevant that 1) AIPAC, which is seen as Stevens’ biggest backer, got blamed first and 2) this secretive organization jumped up to Whack-A-Mole claims about Stevens supporting ICE that are questionable, and certainly easily defensible, at best.
The perceived involvement of AIPAC or other Israeli-supporting groups (which “AIPAC” has become shorthand for) or individuals and their backing of Stevens is a marked difference in a Democratic statewide primary race in Michigan. The group Track AIPAC (which tracks political spending by AIPAC and what it refers to as “the Israel lobby” in an attempt to counter its influence) says those pro-Israel groups have thrown some $5.5 million over the years toward Stevens’ elections, including this one, as of late April.
Significantly, Stevens − whether she had anything personally to do with it or not − also was blasted this month when AIPAC briefly ran an online fundraising plea for her next to one for Republican U.S. Sen. Susan Collins of Maine.
Democrats, after all, have big hopes to take back the majority in the Senate, not elect Republicans.
Stevens hasn’t addressed the ad. And there is no reason to believe Michiganders are consumed by Israel, Middle East politics, or AIPAC, which didn’t even register among the top 18 issues mentioned in a poll of likely Democratic primary voters by the Detroit Regional Chamber last month. The economy, jobs, inflation and the price of gas were at the top.
But that isn’t going to make AIPAC go away as an issue in this race.
Electoral impact
This issue, AIPAC (and similar groups and related individuals) backing pro-Israel candidates, isn’t, obviously, just playing out in Michigan. It’s playing out in Maine; it played out in this year’s Democratic primaries in Illinois; it’s playing out around the country, especially in the Democratic Party.
AIPAC’s own moves seem to be less front and center than in the past, relying more on a related Super PAC called United Democracy Project. But it hasn’t done much to quiet the controversy, fairly or not.
At the same time, AIPAC’s supporters, as well as many of those sympathetic to Israel’s security concerns from neighbors but also supportive of Palestinian rights and treatment, argue Israel’s critics have lapsed into antisemitic language against a backdrop of anti-Jewish attacks, including in Michigan. Those Israeli critics defend their remarks as valid commentary on Israel’s actions.
Together, it has led to tensions in the party that are uncomfortable for some, untenable for others.
Ron Lippett is a former Republican and member of the Oakland County Democratic Party who switched alliances after Trump was elected in 2016. He’s also Jewish, an “ardent Zionist” who believes Israel must be able to determine its future and a Stevens supporter. He’s appalled by what he sees happening to his adopted party.
“As a Jewish person, watching this evolution of the Democratic Party happen in real time has been shocking, disappointing and unnerving on many, many levels,” he said. “I’m struggling.”
He also thinks Netanyahu and his government have “a lot to answer for” and that AIPAC plays a role in that, though he rejects any simplistic, reductive argument that doesn’t see the totality of the circumstances, saying it’s “not capturing the breadth of impact AIPAC has had in protecting the only democracy in the Middle East.”
El-Sayed sees it differently.
“AIPAC is heavily funded by MAGA (Make America Great Again, Trump’s political movement) Republicans and operates through tactics like pop-up PACs to obfuscate influence in Democratic primaries. I oppose that, and I think all Democrats should,” he said.
The tensions in the race and the motivations behind them aren’t likely to change.
One Jewish Democrat close to Stevens and other party leaders who spoke anonymously because they weren’t authorized to speak publicly for her or the party said Stevens is “an unabashed supporter” of the U.S.-Israel relationship and would never moderate her views for “political expediency.” And that’s even though, the source said, Stevens is aware AIPAC has become “a radioactive term.”
Stevens will have a hard time changing the subject, predicted Democratic political consultant Chris DeWitt.
“AIPAC is a huge problem right now both in Michigan and across the country,” he said. And it’s not just about Israel.
“Democratic motivation in this election is very high. They don’t want to support a candidate whose main source of funds is also raising money to keep Republicans in office,” he said. “Stevens’ picture being paired with Republican Susan Collins in Maine. That’s a biggie.”
Contact Todd Spangler: tspangler@freepress.com. Follow him on X @tsspangler.
This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: AIPAC has become a dirty word in Michigan’s U.S. Senate race
Reporting by Todd Spangler, Detroit Free Press / Detroit Free Press
USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect
