Monday, November 02, 2026

11/02 Links Pt1: Why the US midterms are the election that matters to Israel most; Dan Schueftan: Why Israel Doesn't Need Your Approval To Defend Itself

From Ian:

Why the US midterms are the election that matters to Israel most
THAT OBSESSION, Israel and Zionism’s status as the ultimate political and cultural “omnicause,” continues to inflame the most consequential midterm races. In Los Angeles, for instance, DSA-aligned mayoral candidate Nithya Raman has finally succumbed to DSA demands that she embrace the BDS movement lest she lose the party’s endorsement.

In Michigan, an ad late last month in support of anti-Zionist Senator candidate Abdul El-Sayed blamed US aid to Israel for America’s high food costs. The commercial was so overreaching and extreme that El-Sayed released a statement saying that it was “not affiliated with his campaign.”

Most disheartening are campaigns by Michigan Jews intended to convince other Michigan Jews to vote for El-Sayed.

In this perverse reversal of logic, well-known Jews such as actor Mandy Patinkin are exhorting Michigan’s Jews to vote for El-Sayed not only as an example of Jewish values, but because “Jewish safety depends on a real multiracial democracy, and Abdul is the one fighting to protect it,” said Patinkin in late last week.

In a second ad a few days later bemoaning attacks on El-Sayed’s Muslim faith, Patinkin suggested that fighting Islamophobia is the best way to combat antisemitism. “Who is going to stand up for the rights of all of us? Abdul,” he added.

Netanyahu fits neatly into this self-sabotaging worldview, serving as the ultimate bogeyman for Jews like Patinkin, ever eager to perform their anti-Zionist ablutions, along with the Gentiles who affirm them. Of course, Eisenkot, a career military man, is nearly as hawkish as Bibi. But as an enigma and newcomer, he would prove far less of a rallying-cry for America’s progressive masses.

Should candidates like Raman, El-Sayed, Troy Jackson in Maine, and Angie Nixon in Florida triumph on Tuesday, the consequences will be seismic no matter who ultimately leads the nation. In July, a vote by more than 100 Democrats to halt aid to Israel was defeated this past summer owing to Republican Congressional control.

But should that control switch from Red to Blue, similar measures are almost certain to be forthcoming – and win.

Even more worrisome for Israel, declarations of “genocide” and other anti-Israel litmus tests are likely to anchor the Democratic platform in the 2028 presidential race.

Already, Kamala Harris is suggesting her 2024 defeat was tied to Joe Biden’s refusal to rein in Netanyahu in Gaza. She and other potential Democratic challengers are unlikely to make the mistake of under-criticizing Israel again.

This type of fundamental policy shift has no precedent, even for a politician as seasoned and wily as Netanyahu. Which means even if he wins the battle to lead Israel, Israel’s war with Washington may not have even begun.
David Collier: Israel’s Election: Why the Coalition Arithmetic Does Not Tell the Whole Story
Eisenkot’s Dilemma
When Eisenkot receives the first mandate, his options are limited.

Without Arab-party support, his existing bloc falls well short of a majority. Cooperation with the ultra-Orthodox parties would create another set of conflicts over military conscription – and still would not be enough.

And why would the ultra-Orthodox parties break the long-standing union with the Likud for a government that just does not look as if it has a long shelf life?

A minority government dependent on Arab-party support is theoretically possible, but politically contentious, particularly in the aftermath of October 7.

He could also explore a unity arrangement with Netanyahu, although that would contradict explicit campaign commitments.

If Eisenkot fails to form a government, the political balance changes again.

Netanyahu’s Different Calculation
Netanyahu could then have an opportunity to negotiate from a different position.

He could approach Eisenkot with a straightforward argument: neither of us can govern alone, and another election carries risks for both. Why not reach an agreement?

But Netanyahu’s assessment of those risks would be very different.

He could reasonably look at the electoral threshold effects, the opposition’s difficulties and the possibility of another contest and conclude that returning to the polls is an acceptable alternative to making substantial concessions.

Would the tens of thousands who flew in especially to help unseat him – want to repeat the exercise again in a few months? Would the Arabs, having seen the futility of a large turnout, simply stay at home next time?

Eisenkot, by contrast, would have to consider the political damage of failed negotiations, particularly if they involved controversial discussions with Arab parties.

That creates an asymmetry: one leader may feel greater pressure to reach an agreement than the other.

The Succession Question
There is another dynamic that deserves attention.

Netanyahu cannot lead the Israeli right forever. Whenever his departure comes, a struggle for succession will follow.

And there is no undisputed heir.

Both Bennett and Lieberman emerged from the political right. Their ambitions may extend beyond replacing Netanyahu as prime minister through an opposition coalition.

They may also see opportunities in the eventual contest to lead the post-Netanyahu right.

Do not dismiss this just because it seems unlikely today. Gideon Sa’ar was also an ex-Likudnik sitting in the anti-Bibi camp. He made the move first, returning to the fold, probably with an eye to future leadership positions. Lieberman is an ex-Likudnik too. Bennett was once leader of a party to the right of the Likud. In Israeli politics – everything is possible.

This adds another layer to negotiations already shaped by competing interests and political calculations.

What Happens Next?
The central mistake in much of the analysis is to treat Israel’s coalition negotiations as a simple mathematical exercise.

They are nothing of the sort.

Bennett and Lieberman can support his candidacy while rejecting the compromises he may need to make.

Looking at the weakness of the camp, they may both favour another election. It is likely Lieberman does. That would reduce Eisenkot’s problematic 48 seats to an impossible 41.

And behind all of this lies the unresolved question of who eventually succeeds Netanyahu.

To understand what happens next, we need to stop asking only who has enough seats to form a government.

We also need to ask who has the most to gain if they fail.

By my calculations, the majority of seats (right wing 53, Lieberman 7 and some of Bennett’s 12 = up to 72 seats) may well prefer another election.

And if this is the case, we can expect another election in Israel in the spring.
Khaled Abu Toameh: Qatar Glorifies Terrorism: Al-Jazeera's Propaganda Machine Celebrates Hamas
The Hamas officials featured in Al-Jazeera's footage are portrayed as military leaders, strategists, and figures worthy of admiration.

The program included footage of meetings inside Gaza's underground tunnel network, discussions about terror attacks, and documents that purportedly shed light on the preparations for the October 7 massacre.

Among the most disturbing revelations was an operational order attributed to Deif and dated October 5, 2023. According to the network's presentation, the document specified that the invasion of Israel would begin at 6:30 a.m. on October 7.

What exactly was Al-Jazeera trying to communicate to its Arabic-speaking audience? The message is clear: These are your heroes – men who planned and carried out the massacre of Jews on October 7 and whose declared objective is the destruction of Israel.

This is not journalism exposing terrorism; it is a platform for glorifying it.

Al-Jazeera could have used the material to examine how Hamas transformed Gaza into a military base, diverted resources into tunnels and weapons production, and prepared an assault in which they murdered approximately 1,200 people in Israel and abducted 251 others.

Instead, Al-Jazeera chose to turn the architects of the massacre into celebrated military figures.... These were, however, the leaders of an Iran-backed Islamist terrorist organization whose October 7 assault included the deliberate mass-murder of civilians, rape, torture, and hostage-taking.

Qatar has hosted senior Hamas leaders for years [and] has also served as a diplomatic base for purportedly "neutral" negotiations involving the terrorist organization.

The US Congressional Research Service, which notes that Hamas is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, has also documented Qatar's engagement with the organization...

Al-Jazeera English presents itself as a major international news organization, competing for credibility among Western viewers.

Al-Jazeera Arabic, meanwhile, operates in a political and cultural environment in which the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas enjoy considerable support among segments of the public.

American universities, policymakers, and media organizations should ask whether foreign government funding creates conflicts of interest and delectable opportunities for political influence.

Qatar cannot simultaneously present itself as a trusted Western partner and avoid serious questions about its relationships with Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, the current Emir of Qatar, and his family, who provide a media platform for Hamas's leaders to glorify the October 7 massacre, should not be allowed to hide behind the claim that they are merely reporting the news.


John Anderson: No Apologies: Why Israel Doesn't Need Your Approval To Defend Itself | Dan Schueftan
John is joined by Israeli national security expert Dan Schueftan for a blunt conversation about why Israel is so resented and how it remains resilient in spite of widespread opposition. Dan argues that Israel is hated because it challenges Western assumptions, such as the belief that the Arab world is on the road to democracy, and that institutions like the United Nations can settle conflicts.

He explains why Egypt and Jordan, whose interests often align with Israel’s, struggle to act on them in the face of hostile public opinion, and why he sees Turkey under Erdogan as a danger to Israel, NATO and the West. He also argues that democracy depends on national solidarity, and describes the Israeli army as a social institution that brings Israelis from very different backgrounds together. This conversation is a candid look at the challenge of defending a free society in a hostile region without compromising its freedom.

Dr. Dan Schueftan is the Head of the International Graduate Program in National Security at the University of Haifa and director of the university's National Security Studies Center. He has previously served as an advisor to Israel's National Security Council. His recent books include The Israel-Arab Reader – A Documentary History of the Middle East Conflict (2016) and Israel's National Objectives - A Comprehensive Perspective (2021).

00:00 Introduction
01:24 Tel Aviv and a generation ready to defend its freedom
03:26 Why antisemitism is a warning sign, and why Israel is resented
05:40 Europe, the UN and why Israel has "a problem but no dilemma"
15:09 A record of calling it right, from 1973 to Oslo
23:19 Gaza and whether civilised societies can defend themselves
32:13 Can the political culture of the Arab world change?
42:44 Turkey and the contest for the Middle East
1:14:56 What if American support wanes?
1:22:55 The IDF as a social institution
1:25:46 Will Jewish life endure in the diaspora?


Netanyahu calls on parties who oppose terrorism to form ‘broad national gov't,’ open to discussion
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called on parties that oppose terrorism to sit with Likud and form a “broad national government” in a social media post on Monday night.

“The Israeli public does not want a government that depends on Ra'am and the Joint List, parties that support terrorism and reject the existence of the Jewish state,” Netanyahu wrote.

He added that “from day one, we have extended our hand toward the formation of a broad national government.”

“A clear majority of the Jewish public chose the Likud as the largest party, and chose me, as prime minister, to lead the next government,” Netanyahu said. “We aim to form a broad government with our partners and with any other party that wishes to join, provided they do not support terrorism."

"I am open to dialogue on this matter.”

This is the first time since last week's election results were published that he has called for any type of government to be formed.
Call me Back Podcast: Three Dilemmas Facing Israel’s Next Prime Minister - with Tal Becker
Israel has spent the three years since October 7th in direct conflict with its enemies. But in the aftermath of its mother-of-all elections, it now faces three big dilemmas.

In this episode, Dan sits down with Ark Media contributor Tal Becker to examine the branching pathways that confront Israel, as conflicts continue to mount–both internal and external. Plus, is the information war the most consequential one Israel’s next prime minister will face?




Michael Oren: The Meaning of Michigan
More recently, a campaign ad released by a pro-El-Sayed PAC shows a working-class couple unable to buy eggs and bananas for their children. The mother says, “We have to set that $7 aside for killing Palestinians.” The commercial not only accuses Israel of genocide but of taking billions out of Americans’ pockets to pay for its universal healthcare. ADL chief Jonathan Greenblatt described the clip as “a case study in antisemitism,” but not El-Sayed, who repeatedly refused to condemn it.

El-Sayed has since tried to walk back his comments about the Temple Israel attack and tried to disassociate himself from the antisemitic ad. He insists that he’s not Michigan’s Mamdani or a secret member of DSA. He similarly distances himself from his family’s longstanding connections to the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood, denounces antisemitism, and proclaims his commitment to protecting the state’s 129,000 Jews. But no one doubts—nor does he deny—that his hatred of the homeland of half of the world’s Jews and sympathy for those sworn to destroy it remain undiminished. “The ad did not invent its argument,” said El-Sayed’s former Democratic challenger Representative Haley Stevens. “It dramatized one Dr. El-Sayed has made in his own words throughout this campaign: that Israel is the reason Michigan cannot afford schools, healthcare, and child care.” Stevens has since endorsed Republican candidate Mike Rogers.

She is scarcely alone. No one doubts that, if elected, El-Sayed would not only vote against further military aid to Israel but also against systems development and intelligence sharing with Israel. He would favor boycotts and sanctions. No one doubts that El-Sayed’s election would sound not a dog whistle but a clarion call to Jew-haters nationwide.

Which brings me back to Michigan—not the land of the farms and streams longed for in the Berlin ballad, but the state that epitomizes Midwestern America, a down-to-earth land of basically clearsighted and tolerant people who have been traditionally welcoming to Jews. Michigan is not New York, a politically raucous city filled with the disgruntled and indebted humanities majors who are just maddened enough to elect a Mamdani and other DSA fanatics. Michigan is a bellwether, a standard-bearer, for much of America. For American Jews, El-Sayed’s victory may well be a turning point from which there is no return. Jew-hatred will have officially come to the senate.
Noah Rothman: Haley Stevens Is Not Alone
Those voters gave El-Sayed every chance to assuage their consciences. But the candidate has consciously chosen to make as few concessions as possible to his critics. A competent political campaign might not have antagonized its ostensible allies by refusing to condemn attacks on its own constituents — both the physical and rhetorical sort, including branding key neighborhoods bastions of racism that deserve only ostracism. It’s not Haley’s fault that El-Sayed refused to maintain the Democratic Party’s coalition. For that, blame the candidate.

Of all the rationalizations that have accompanied Stevens’s about-face, the notion that all this dissension within Democratic ranks might actually be good for the movement with which El-Sayed is aligned is the most preposterous.

Perhaps “Stevens’ stunt backfires,” left-wing polling analyst G. Elliott Morris opined. After all, she “validated all the progressive critiques of centrists.” If El-Sayed were to somehow lose on Tuesday night, the numbers-cruncher Nate Silver posited, “it will now be much harder to blame his progressivism since people can just blame Haley Stevens instead.”

This is precisely the kind of category error that proximity to an election encourages among partisans. What does El-Sayed’s pathological, obdurate, and entirely sincere hostility to the Jewish State and his reflexive impulse to evaluate terrorist attacks from the perspective of their perpetrators have to do with American progressivism? Since October 7, the left has allowed the activists in their midst to blur the distinctions between big government policy preferences and the foreign-inflected Palestinianism that has captured the European left. It’s not a package deal, and the Democrats who object to the hijacking of their movement are deferring to principle.

By definition, they are the brave ones in this equation. Stevens knew exactly what her decision would cost her. So, too, did her fellow Democrats who bucked partisan pressures to placidly consign themselves to homogeneity within the Democratic Party’s ranks. They, not those who have observed conformity on pain of retribution, have taken the harder course. And because the Democrats have themselves spent the last ten years arguing that ageless American principles should rise above partisan commitments, the party knows it.

The outsize reaction to Stevens’s maneuver is an expression of Democratic insecurity. Maybe El-Sayed will pull it out in the end. But no one pounds the table like this over one defection, even one as prominent as this. Democrats know that there are many more Haley Stevenses out there. How many is the question voters will answer on Tuesday night.
There’s No Neutral Side By Abe Greenwald
Via Commentary Newsletter, sign up here.
Stevens’s announcement, despite the best efforts of her new liberal-left enemies, has forced a measure of self-reflection on Michigan Democrats. How many will recognize that they’ve also been lying to themselves? And what will they do about it? Surely, no Democrat voting for Rogers has to worry about going through the public hate-fest Stevens has endured. They’re now free to follow their consciences and join her side with comparative ease.

On the Democratic Party’s opposing side are the anti-Semitism enablers. In response to Stevens’s principled decision and the threat it poses, they’ve hardened in their indifference to Jew-hatred.

Do they know what side they’ve joined and, therefore, who they’ve become? Some do, and some don’t.

The eyes of the party’s leaders, candidates, and elected officials are wide open. The same must be said for the liberal media personalities who have gone to bat for El-Sayed throughout his campaign. You can’t reach the upper ranks of media or party politics and fail to recognize his textbook anti-Semitism for what it is. The leftists among them are no less animated by anti-Semitic fantasies about Israel than is El-Sayed. So-called moderate party leaders, for their part, have struck a bargain with the left and will put up with anything to win elections and get a shot at taking down Donald Trump.

It all comes down to the Democratic voters who had been planning to vote for El-Sayed. Among them, too, are radical haters and pragmatic enablers. But unlike the Democratic leadership and the media class, some of these voters are genuinely incapable of recognizing any bigotry that’s not of the white-nationalist variety. Even when Kanye West, a black man, flaunts his extravagant Jew-hatred on the world stage, these liberals call it white supremacy.

The question is this: Does Stevens’s 11th-hour defection wake up a significant number of Democrats to the fact that they, too, are already on the side of decency? Or can nothing shake them from the conviction that the decent side is—by definition and for all time—the one that opposes Donald Trump?

We’ll soon know what side Michigan is on.
Commentary Podcast: Even Stevens
We are joined by JNS's Ruthie Blum from Tel Aviv to discuss tomorrow's impending midterm election and the hoopla in Michigan over Haley Stevens endorsing Mike Rogers and the ridiculous reactions from democrats. Plus, Israel's elections are over, and now the process of coalition-building begins with Avigdor Lieberman refusing to serve with Netanyahu, thus all but ensuring another round of elections. Finally, what the future holds for Trump with regards to Iran and the prospects of facing a democratic majority in the House and Senate, and John and Abe recommend the PBS Great Performances episode on the songwriter Jimmy Webb.


Ben Shapiro: Mike Rogers Responds to the Haley Stevens Endorsement on the Show

Lawler blasts Schumer for supporting ‘vile antisemite’ El-Sayed
Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY) lauded Rep. Haley Stevens (D-MI) and her last-minute endorsement of former Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) in Michigan’s Senate race — just as the New York Republican hopes to get Democratic voters to cross party lines in his suburban swing district, which has a large Jewish population.

Lawler, one of just three members of his party representing a district then-Vice President Kamala Harris carried in 2024, greeted Stevens’ eleventh-hour defection from Democratic nominee Abdul El-Sayed’s camp with a post on X reading only “America.” The GOP congressman’s 17th District seat encompasses Orthodox Jewish towns in Rockland County as well as a range of Jewish voters in adjacent Westchester County, and has sought to win their votes by highlighting the ascendance of anti-Israel elements in the Democratic Party.

Accordingly, Lawler criticized Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) for calling Stevens’ turn to Rogers a “despicable betrayal” — and blasted El-Sayed,who sparred with Stevens in the days before she rescinded her endorsement over a wave of antisemitic TV ads.

“The only despicable betrayal is by Sen. Schumer, a complete Shanda, who has thrown the Jewish people under the bus in his pursuit of power,” Lawler wrote on X, using a Yiddish word for scandal or embarrassment.. “Supporting a vile antisemite like El-Sayed, because for Chuck Schumer being a Democrat matters more than standing up for the Jewish people.”

A spokesperson for Schumer did not respond to repeated requests for comment. Neither did Lawler’s opponent in Tuesday’s election, Cait Conley, a former Army major and centrist Democrat, who has also courted Jewish voters and distanced herself from her party’s left flank.


Haley Stevens cheered at Jewish day school after endorsing GOP Senate candidate
Democratic Michigan US Rep. Haley Stevens was given an extended ovation at a fundraising gala for a Detroit-area Jewish day school Sunday, hours after her endorsement of Republican Mike Rogers for Senate.

Stevens, a longtime pro-Israel stalwart, was celebrated at the Yeshiva Beth Yehudah annual dinner as many members of her party across the country spoke out against her decision to break with Democratic nominee Abdul El-Sayed.

Video of Stevens’s minute-long standing ovation was shared on social media by representatives of Agudath Israel of America, a major Orthodox Jewish advocacy group. Strongly pro-Israel Jews have largely lauded her move to Rogers, which she said came about in part because of her objections to El-Sayed’s past relationship with anti-Israel streamer Hasan Piker.

Also on Sunday evening, Stevens struggled to explain the timing of her decision in an interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper. One consistency in her response was her belief that she was helping Democrats beat back antisemitism within their own party.

“I’m trying to help the Democratic Party. I felt the same way about Graham Platner and his Nazi tattoo,” Stevens said, referencing the Maine Senate candidate who ultimately stepped down from the nomination. Asked if she believed El-Sayed is antisemitic, she responded, “I think some of the actions have certainly been antisemitic, Anderson, but I’m just sick of who he stands with.”

She named Piker and “the uncle,” referring to Piker’s uncle Cenk Uygur, whose PAC produced an ad supporting El-Sayed that blamed Israel for the price of groceries. After Stevens publicly pressured El-Sayed to condemn the ad’s contents, the candidate appeared to do so on Saturday night, which Stevens celebrated in a statement — hours before endorsing Rogers.


Abdul El-Sayed's Bagmen: Inside the Shadowy Network of Anti-Israel Donors, PACs, and Super PACs Funding His 'Grassroots' Campaign
Abdul El-Sayed's Senate campaign has been quietly supported by a shadowy network of anti-Israel donors and political groups that have quietly spent millions to elect a new breed of radical Democrats, according to a new investigation by the watchdog group Canary Mission. The same financial network is also funding other far-left candidates who despise Israel, such as Ilhan Omar and Darializa Avila-Chevalier.

Canary Mission, an independent research organization, says it has found that a significant source of financial support for El-Sayed and a cadre of other far-left candidates—in the millions of dollars—is coming from more than a dozen political action committees, many of them created in the wake of Hamas's Oct. 7, 2023, terror attack, that are specifically focused on opposition to Israel.

The PACs that I'm a part of are winning a lot of races," Linda Sarsour, the virulently antisemitic activist, boasted last year at a Council for American-Islamic Relations leadership conference. In a video message from June of this year, she added: "We all have to step up as a moment to try to fill the gaps that maybe the [Democratic] Party won't fill because doctor Abdul [El-Sayed] is not their type of candidate."

The network of about 14 PACs and super PACs—funded by the same 20 or so often-overlapping donors—largely supports the same candidates, Canary Mission found. While individual PACs have limits on what they can give a candidate, a large number of like-minded PACs giving to a candidate can create a financial firehose. Super PACs have no limits on what they spend as long as they don't directly coordinate with a candidate.

The "new wave" of PACs and super PACS was ostensibly created to counter AIPAC—the American pro-Israel lobbying group that is the bogeyman of the far left—and pro-Israel candidates by joining forces with "established progressive, socialist, labor and Muslim political organizations," including CAIR, with its alleged ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, Canary Mission explained in its report. "Gaza supplied the rallying issue; opposition to AIPAC helped unite the coalition around an agenda extending well beyond Israel." They include CAIR's affiliated Unity & Justice Fund super PAC as well as the anti-AIPAC juggernaut American Priorities, a super PAC that has spent millions this election cycle to aid far-left, anti-Israel candidates like El-Sayed. Additional support comes from smaller-sized PACs like Citizens Against AIPAC Corruption, the Muslims United PAC, and PAL PAC, which purports to empower "leaders who stand on the right side of history" against Israel.

A familiar group of donors is funding the network of PACs and super PACs. Many of them are Muslims who have played a central role in incubating the anti-Israel movement across America. The group includes Amir Nathoo, a board member at "Tech for Palestine" who once referred to Israel as "an evil and delusional state that is a stain on human history," and Showcase Commerce CEO Mohammad Waqas Javed, who donated more than a million dollars to an assortment of political groups that consider opposition to Israel a central platform.
Former El-Sayed campaign worker among anti-Israel activists indicted for terrorizing Michigan’s Jewish community: feds
A former Abdul El-Sayed campaign worker was among the dozen anti-Israel activists accused of terrorizing members of Michigan’s Jewish community, according to feds.

Mariam Odeh, 24, was one of eight included in the original rounds of indictments by the US Attorney’s Office for allegedly threatening University of Michigan officials in an attempt to force the school to cut ties with Israel, the US Attorney’s Office in Eastern Michigan said.

The number of conspirators grew to 12 Friday when four more alleged co-conspirators were indicted, federal prosecutors said.

Odeh, who was charged in June for her alleged role in the scheme, did a stint working for El-Sayed’s Michigan Senate campaign, The Detroit News reported that same month.

She had been paid twice by the lefty candidate’s campaign, records obtained by the outlet showed.

An El-Sayed spokesperson later confirmed Odeh’s position as an hourly employee on the campaign for two weeks to the outlet.

The Dearborn, Michigan native left the campaign gig on April 15, after raking in nearly $750, El-Sayed spokesperson Roxie Richner told the paper.

Odeh was allegedly among the crew of pro-Palestinian activists who planned and carried out the harassment and intimidation of school officials to try to get the university to cut ties with Israel, according to feds.
El-Sayed defends harsher criticism of Israel than Saudi Arabia in ‘60 Minutes’ interview
Michigan Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed defended his sharp criticism of Israel over other Middle Eastern countries, including Saudi Arabia, in an extended “60 Minutes” interview released on Sunday.

The remarks came amid growing tensions over El-Sayed’s position on Israel ahead of Tuesday’s election, with Rep. Haley Stevens (D-MI), whom El-Sayed defeated in the Democratic primary, endorsing his Republican opponent, Mike Rogers, on Sunday.

When pressed by CBS News’ Ross Douthat on why Israel attracts more intense criticism from American progressives than other Middle Eastern countries, El-Sayed cited “the scale of U.S. spending, the scale of those war crimes, and the impact on our politics.”

He pointed to AIPAC’s spending against him in the Democratic primary, arguing that pro-Israel political organizations have an outsized influence on American elections.

“Do you really think that there is any entity on behalf of the Saudi government that is as strong as AIPAC is on behalf of the Israeli government?” he asked.

Saudi Arabia routinely outspends pro-Israel groups in total registered lobbying expenditures. According to OpenSecrets’ Foreign Lobby Watch, Saudi-linked foreign principals sent approximately $421.9 million on activities disclosed under the Foreign Agents Registration Act between 2016 and 2025, the fourth-most of any country, compared with approximately $214.6 million by Israel-linked foreign principals, the tenth-most, during the same period.

Such expenditures are distinct from campaign spending by AIPAC and similar political organizations, which are funded by American donors and do not work on behalf of the Israeli government. In the 2026 campaign cycle, the United Democracy Project, AIPAC’s affiliated super PAC, spent roughly $104 million across the country, including over $30 million in the Michigan Democratic Senate primary.

“I’m not going to defend Saudi Arabia. I’m not going to defend Egypt,” El-Sayed continued. “I am principled in my opposition, but when one organization spends $33 million in one election on behalf of the interests of the foreign policy of a foreign government, yeah, there’s going to be a big response there.”

On the issue of a two-state solution, El-Sayed pushed back on the notion that a future Palestinian state should be established based on Israel’s existing borders.

“Too often, when this question is asked, we start with the currently existing state of Israel that is existing in contraposition to the possibility of a state of Palestine,” he said. “We have to start on that premise, and then from there we say, OK, where do we carve out a Palestinian state? That’s not equal rights to peace, dignity and self-determination.”

“‘We’re going to just take as fixed the idea of the state as it is’ implies that you are just taking whatever’s carved left, and there is no actual real opportunity for self-determination for the Palestinian people,” he said. “It’s like, ‘Hey, listen, after I eat, then you can have my seconds.’ I just don’t think that’s fair.”

When pressed on why he would not affirm that Israelis want a Jewish state alongside a Palestinian state, El-Sayed questioned the question’s premise, saying he did not know whether it was true.

“I think the question right now is, how do you empower two communities with equal rights to peace, dignity and self-determination to have the conversation amongst themselves to see where that plays out?” El-Sayed said. “But the problem is that process has never been dignified.”


Michigan Jewish leaders predict significant swing toward Rogers in Jewish community
Rep. Haley Stevens’ (D-MI) surprise endorsement of GOP former Rep. Mike Rogers on Sunday after a public falling out with Democrat Abdul El-Sayed provided a last-minute shake-up in Michigan’s Senate race.

The endorsement could help push undecided Jewish voters, who strongly supported Stevens during the primary, toward Rogers. Stevens received a standing ovation at an annual gala on Sunday evening for Yeshiva Beth Yehuda, the largest yeshiva in Michigan, alongside a number of other Democratic and Republican officials and candidates.

Even before Stevens’ decision, leaders in Michigan’s Democratic and Jewish communities were expecting a significant swing in the Jewish community vote towards Rogers in Tuesday’s Senate election, they said in conversations with Jewish Insider over nearly a week on the campaign trail in Michigan.

Estimates among political and other communal leaders vary on how the Jewish vote will break in the race. Some community leaders — on both sides of the race — say that half of Jewish voters are positioned to vote for Rogers or leave their ballots blank, with more bullish predictions putting El-Sayed’s ceiling as low as 30% within the Jewish community.

For context: the Jewish community in Michigan, which numbers 130,000, typically supports Democratic candidates with around 70% support. (One recent reference point outside of Michigan: New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani only won about one-third of the Jewish vote, according to exit polls, against former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who ran as an independent.)

The pro-El Sayed Rebellion PAC advertisement blaming the price of groceries on U.S. support for Israel hasn’t helped matters — and set off a cascade of events that ended with Stevens’ endorsement of Rogers.

Stevens’ announcement led a host of prominent Democratic leaders, and onetime Stevens allies, to reiterate their support for El-Sayed and, in many cases, denounce Stevens personally, as well as a surge in fundraising for El-Sayed.

The week also brought announcements from Stevens’ fiancé and former campaign chair that they plan to vote for Rogers, which pointed to the deep dissatisfaction and sense of alienation among members of the Jewish Democratic community and suggested that the environment among Michigan Jewish Democrats is substantially different in 2026 than it was in 2024.


Lebanon’s Top Diplomat in Detroit Attends El-Sayed-Supporting ‘Banquet’ After Praising Hezbollah’s Suicide Bombing of US Marines as ‘Heroic Resistance’
The top Lebanese diplomat in Detroit, who attended an Arab American banquet in support of Abdul El-Sayed and other Democratic candidates last week, praised Hezbollah's 1983 suicide attack on the U.S. Marine Corps barracks, which killed 241 American service members, in social media posts unearthed by the Washington Free Beacon.

Ibrahim Charara serves as Lebanon's consul general in Detroit, an important role since there is a large Lebanese population in the Detroit area. He wrote on Nov. 23, 2021, the anniversary of the barracks bombing, that the "heroic resistance" ended "American military occupation" of Lebanon with a "single strike." The Iran-backed Hezbollah is believed to have been behind the attack, in which two suicide bombers killed 241 Marines, 58 French soldiers, and 6 civilians at military facilities in Beirut.

"From the Marines barracks in Beirut to the Al-Tanf base... we will reject the occupier and defeat him," Charara wrote, a reference to a purported Iran and Hezbollah drone attack on American soldiers at Al-Tanf base in Syria in 2021.

Charara has espoused other anti-American and anti-Israel views. His banner on X is an image of a burning Israeli flag. His bio quotes Ghassan Kanafani, a leader in the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a terrorist group that carried out numerous suicide bombings. In 2021, he praised the Gilboa prison break, in which six Islamic terrorists, including Hamas bombmaker Zakaria Zubeidi, escaped from an Israeli prison.

Despite his terrorist rhetoric, Charara has ascended to a key diplomatic post in the United States. The consul general position in Detroit is a key post for the Lebanese government given the large Lebanese presence in the area, centered around Dearborn and Dearborn Heights.

Charara, who previously served as a diplomat in Egypt, has been welcomed with open arms by the Lebanese and Arab diaspora in Dearborn and surrounding cities. That was highlighted by Charara's visit last week to the 29th annual banquet of the Arab American Political Action Committee in Dearborn, which featured El-Sayed, Michigan gubernatorial candidate Jocelyn Benson, Lt. Gov. Garlin Gilchrist, and others.

El-Sayed, who is seen in photos seated near Charara, heaped praise during his speech on AAPAC founder Osama Siblani, who has come under fire for stating that Hamas and Hezbollah are "freedom fighters" and praising former Hezbollah leader Hasan Nasrallah as a "hero."


Mamdani backs international dockworkers’ strike against arms shipments to Israel
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, who has repeatedly accused Israel of committing “genocide” in Gaza, expressed support on Monday for an international dockworkers’ strike against arms shipments to the Jewish state.

No New York ports participated in the action.

“Dockworkers went on strike across 113 ports in 22 countries to disrupt the transport of weapons of war, in solidarity with the Palestinian people,” Mamdani wrote, sharing a link to a Reuters report on the Oct. 30 strikes.

“New Yorkers stand with them,” he stated. “When working people unite in their power, we build a better world. Dockworkers do not work for war.”

More than 25 labor unions backed Friday’s coordinated action, which included strikes and demonstrations at major shipping hubs in Europe and beyond, including Genoa, Italy; Piraeus, Greece; Valencia, Spain; and Tangier Med, Morocco.

Workers protested the use of commercial ports to transport weapons and military equipment to conflict zones, including Israel. They also called for higher wages, improved working conditions, greater protections for seafarers operating in war zones and the right to have doctors aboard vessels crossing conflict zones.

About 3,000 dockworkers and seafarers participated in a walkout at Piraeus, disrupting cargo operations and ferry services to the Greek islands, Reuters reported.

The strikes were supported by No Harbour for Genocide, an anti-Israel campaign seeking to prevent military equipment, fuel and other supplies from reaching the Jewish state.

The organization maintains what it calls a “blocklist” of vessels it identifies as transporting military supplies and energy to Israel. It urges dockworkers, port authorities and governments to deny those vessels access to ports and related services.

The group said it documented 315 shipments of components for Israeli defense manufacturer Elbit Systems passing through 56 commercial ports in 29 countries between August 2025 and September 2026.

It also estimated that the recent strikes would delay some 52,000 shipping containers carrying $2.8 billion worth of cargo. Reuters stated that it could not independently verify the estimate.


How Israel hopes third war with Iran will be different than Gaza
Many Israelis expect a third round of war between the US-Israel and Iran – and whoever else in the region Tehran pulls in. The next question many have is: Will this really be the last battle or just another “round” in a series of new, seemingly endless rounds?

Israelis’ experience with seemingly endless rounds of fighting can be seen on multiple fronts.

But it is most fresh regarding Gaza, where major conflicts were fought in 2008-9, 2012, 2014, 2021, along with another half-dozen or so minor conflicts, all before October 7.

If so, might Iran just become the new Gaza problem?

In other words, might Iran become an adversary who is too scary to go all out against and so cannot be completely beaten but only contained, deterred, and delayed from perpetrating future attacks on Israel?

Iran may only be containable, not beatable
Might Iran become an unending series of “hiccups” when ballistic missiles rain down on all of Israel’s cities (not, like old days with Hamas, “just Sderot”), and the whole country shuts down with people hiding in their bomb shelters?

What will that mean for routine life, foreign investment, and the constant need to produce hugely expensive air-defense interceptors, not to mention air travel?

This is assuming that Israel maintains the heavy upper hand and the Islamic Republic does not, at some point, surprise Jerusalem with a new weapon or tactic which could cause far more harm.

With all of those questions, why would Israel roll the dice to attack now, when there is no immediate danger from Iran either with respect to its nuclear or ballistic missile program? Both those issues could eventually return to being threats, but they are not expected to be major or imminent for several years.

There are at least two hopeful factors which some Israeli officials think could make this third round more effective – and the general struggle against Iran more successful and faster than the drawn-out, almost 20-year struggle with Hamas.

Officials point out that there are tens of millions of Iranians who hate the regime and want to tear it down – a much more formidable challenge for internal rebellion than Hamas ever faced in Gaza.
US struck Iran's Qeshm Island, US officials confirm
The US carried out strikes on Iran's Qeshm Island in the Strait of Hormuz, a US official said on Monday.

The strikes, earlier reported by the Wall Street Journal, appeared to be limited and were not a resumption of major combat operations, the official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

Another official said the strikes were defensive measures against Iranians using surface-to-air missiles against US assets.

The Pentagon referred a request for comment to the US Central Command (CENTCOM), which oversees American forces in the Middle East. CENTCOM did not respond to requests for comment.

Earlier on Monday, Iranian state media outlet IRNA reported that there were several explosions on Qeshm Island.

The Journal reported that the attack was the latest in a series of strikes carried out by Washington in recent weeks.

Fox News, citing officials, said the strikes were defensive and carried out in response to Iran firing at a US aircraft.


IDF: 6 Hamas operatives, two of them Oct 7 terrorists, killed in recent Gaza strikes
Four Palestinians were reportedly killed by Israeli strikes across the Gaza Strip on Monday, with the Israeli military also saying it had killed six members of the Hamas terror group, including two terrorists who took part in the October 7, 2023 onslaught, in earlier attacks.

Medics in Gaza said two people were killed and six were wounded in two separate airstrikes in Khan Younis, in the south of the enclave, on Monday. A woman and two children were wounded in one of the strikes, reports said. The children’s ages were not reported.

A third person was killed in an Israeli airstrike in the central Gaza area of Al-Mussadar, the Hamas-run health ministry said.

Palestinian media outlets affiliated with Hamas also reported that one person was killed and five were injured in a strike on a car in the Tel al-Hawa neighborhood of Gaza City.

There was no immediate comment from the Israel Defense Forces on Monday’s strikes.

Meanwhile, the IDF announced that recent strikes in Gaza killed six Hamas operatives, including two who took part in the October 7 onslaught.


Israel reportedly pressing Lebanon to prevent Hezbollah from joining renewed war with Iran
Israel has asked the Lebanese government to deploy troops who will set up road blocks in areas where Hezbollah operatives live in order to prevent the terrorist group from joining the fray if war resumes with Iran, the Kan public broadcaster reports, citing a security source.

The broadcaster says the request was relayed by US mediators, with Jerusalem warning Beirut that fighting in Lebanon will again flare up if Hezbollah attacks Israel.


Conspiracy theorist Tucker Carlson claims Netanyahu pushing Trump to nuke Iran
Far-right commentator and conspiracy theorist Tucker Carlson claimed Sunday that the United States, under pressure from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, could soon launch a nuclear strike against Iran, amid reports that fighting could soon flare up again after months of relative calm.

“Under pressure from Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Trump administration may be within days of launching a nuclear strike on Iran,” Carlson claimed in a lengthy post on X. “The target would be Pickax Mountain in central Iran, where Israeli intelligence claims the Iranian government has restarted its nuclear enrichment program.”

“No conventional weapon in the American arsenal can penetrate 300 feet of solid granite to destroy the tunnels where enrichment is supposedly taking place,” declared Carlson, who has garnered criticism from former conservative allies for his antisemitic and anti-Israel rhetoric.

“The only military option is a nuclear strike. Netanyahu has been pushing hard for one. ‘Bibi calls [US President Donald] Trump about it every day,’ says an informed observer,” Carlson continued.

He said that Netanyahu is “cornered and desperate” after losing his governing majority in last week’s election. “He can’t form a government unless Trump intervenes directly in Israeli politics… Netanyahu must stay close to Trump. He needs this war.”

Carlson did not explain how he reached the conclusion that renewed war would mean a US nuclear strike, only warning that such a strike would “radically accelerate the destruction” caused by the previous round of fighting across the Middle East and Gulf.

“Fallout from a ground explosion at Pickax Mountain would contaminate the Persian Gulf, poisoning the water supply for 100 million people,” Carlson claimed. “And those are just some of the immediate consequences for the region. The rest of the world is every bit as exposed. No country other than the United States has ever used a nuclear weapon in war. Some would like to. An American nuclear attack on Iran would set a new precedent.”

“After the first nuclear strike, World War Three is inevitable. That war would be short and final,” Carlson prophesized, predicting that “hundreds of millions of people” will be killed “if Trump is pushed by Netanyahu into launching a nuclear strike next week.”

As of Monday evening, Israel time, the post had been viewed more than 60 million times.

Social media users pointed out that Carlson has predicted an imminent US nuclear strike on Iran several times since April.



 



AddToAny

Printfriendly

EoZTV Podcast

Podcast URL

Subscribe in podnovaSubscribe with FeedlyAdd to netvibes
addtomyyahoo4Subscribe with SubToMe

search eoz

comments

Speaking

Speaking

translate

E-Book

For $18 donation








Sample Text

EoZ's Most Popular Posts in recent years

Search2

Hasbys!

Hasbys!

2019 Nobel Peace Prize nominee

Elder of Ziyon - حـكـيـم صـهـيـون



This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For 20 years and 40,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.

Donate!

Donate to fight for Israel!

Monthly subscription:
Payment options


One time donation:

Follow EoZ on Twitter!

Interesting Blogs

Show All

Blog Archive

Copyright © Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News | Powered by Blogger
Blogger Templates