There is something deeply unsettling about being repeatedly told how much someone loves you while listening to him vilify so much of what matters to you.
Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, Michigan’s Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate, says: “All of us love and revere Jewish folk, our Jewish neighbors, the faith of Judaism.” He also insists that “I stand deeply and profoundly against antisemitism.”
Then comes the “but.”
Profess affection for Jews. Condemn antisemitism. Then unleash a relentless drumbeat of inflammatory rhetoric against Israel and so much of what millions of Jews believe in, identify with and hold dear.
The assurances are shallow. Jews are living with the consequences.
El-Sayed has called Israel a “rogue state,” and accused it of genocide and apartheid. Asked whether the Israeli government was as evil as Hamas, he answered: “Hamas, evil. Israeli government, evil.” Asked whether Israel has a right to exist, he repeatedly declined to simply say yes.
Criticism of Israel is legitimate. Israelis engage in it every day. Demonization is something else entirely.
We saw that distinction tested in El-Sayed’s own backyard.
When an attacker rammed a vehicle into Temple Israel in West Bloomfield, Mich., in March while its preschool was in session, El-Sayed condemned the attack. He then connected the violence to the Middle East, saying “hurt people do hurt people,” and later pivoted to what he called “genocide in Gaza.”
Michigan Jews had been targeted because they were Jews. Yet El-Sayed still found his way back to Israel.
Michigan Jews aren’t Israeli. Jewish children under the age of 5 aren’t responsible for a war thousands of miles away.
Temple Israel gave El-Sayed the clearest possible opportunity to demonstrate that his assurances to Jews meant something. He failed the test.
And now comes Hasan Piker.
El-Sayed chose to campaign alongside Piker, a streamer whose repeated antisemitic rhetoric has made the label “antisemite” increasingly difficult to dispute. Michigan State Hillel publicly called him a “known antisemite.”
Jewish leaders repeatedly warned El-Sayed about exactly who he was legitimizing. He chose Piker anyway.
Now, Piker has crossed a dangerous red line. He warned American Jews that if they continue identifying themselves with Israel, “eventually, someone’s going to come around and take action.” Not against Israel, but against American Jews. It’s difficult to hear that as anything other than a threat.
Then came the oldest defense of hatred: “They had it coming.”
Piker accused Jews who identify with Israel of “making antisemitism worse.” The audacity is breathtaking. Warn American Jews that they may become targets because of their connection to Israel and then tell them that the hatred directed against them is their own doing.
Threaten the consequence. Blame the victim. Absolve the hatred. It is not an argument. It is an alibi.
Piker’s remarks were so egregious that El-Sayed abruptly disavowed them, issuing a statement saying Piker does not speak for him or his campaign. It’s convenient, artificial and entirely unconvincing—and too little, too late.
El-Sayed knew Piker’s record. The warnings were explicit and repeated. He embraced him anyway.
That’s where this stops being about Hasan Piker and becomes an indictment of Abdul El-Sayed’s judgment.
Candidates should be evaluated not merely by what they say, but by the company they keep and the lines they are willing to cross.
El-Sayed can continue telling Michigan Jews how much he “loves and reveres” them. Still, assurances are cheap, and bad judgment has consequences.
Abdul El-Sayed made his choice. Michigan voters will now make theirs.
