U.S. President Donald Trump lost the midterm elections, and Democrats made major gains in both houses of Congress. Fine, that is the will of the voters. There will also be more Muslim lawmakers, and that is OK, obviously. But there will also be more antisemitic voices, and more Islamists influenced by the principles of the Muslim Brotherhood.
And here, we venture to say, there is a profound contradiction with democracy as we know it.
The result of the American elections carries with it an institutional failure: A significant group of the winning candidates—Muslim and non-Muslim, but allied with the left—can now push American policy toward an obsessive hatred of Israel and the Jews, toward shifting funds and alliances away from Israel, and toward an ideology that discriminates against women, homosexuals and all those who do not believe in Islam.
This is where the danger lies: in the erosion of the principles of the democratic West.
The case of Abdul El-Sayed
The leading case is Abdul El-Sayed, elected to the U.S. Senate from Michigan.
He does not know whether Iran or Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is more dangerous. He calls Netanyahu a war criminal. Israel, in his telling, is genocidal and bloodthirsty. The old formulas for a peaceful solution with the Palestinians are no longer enough.
During the campaign, an outside progressive group supporting El-Sayed circulated an advertisement in which Americans complained that eggs cost $7. The message was simple: The cost-of-living crisis was connected to American aid for Israeli “killers.”
El-Sayed’s campaign said it was not affiliated with the advertisement, and he later said he disagreed with it. But the political message had already been delivered: American money should not go to what Israel’s enemies call genocidal wars.
In Khan Yunis in the Gaza Strip, former mayor Abu Shamala reportedly distributed chocolates to celebrate El-Sayed’s victory.
Vance points a finger at Israel
But perhaps the most revealing evidence of how far this argument has traveled came not from the Democratic left, but from the Republican vice president.
JD Vance said after the election that dissatisfaction with the Iran war and the U.S. relationship with Israel helped drive Republican voters toward the Democrats.
“The top four answers, accounting for nearly all of the responses, were: end the war, focus on cost of living/inflation, put America first and change our relationship to Israel,” Vance wrote, describing what a pollster had heard from disaffected Republican voters.
“Our voters showed up, and the above four reasons are why many of them voted for Democrats,” he added.
Then Vance went further: “The reason we lost is the war.”
Trump himself acknowledged that the Iran war “was a piece of it,” although he said he would make the same decision again.
So Israel and the Middle East are no longer simply foreign-policy questions. They have become part of the American argument over inflation, the cost of living, “America First” and even why voters should abandon one party for another.
Israel as a guarantee of votes
Many of the newly elected politicians echo the same electorally profitable formulas.
In other words, hostility toward Israel—and increasingly toward the Jews—has become a guarantee of votes!
And this phenomenon is not confined to Muslims. Non-Muslim politicians are on the same line, alongside Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) and the entire “Squad,” as well as a new generation of politicians and activists who reject the very existence of a Jewish state.
Rep. André Carson (D-Ind.) voted against a congressional resolution condemning the Oct. 7 Hamas massacre. He said that he had condemned Hamas’s attacks and demanded the release of the hostages, but argued that the resolution itself was one-sided.
The list grows—and so does the language.
Israel is genocidal. Israel is bloodthirsty. Israel is responsible for America’s problems. Money is being taken from ordinary Americans and handed to Israel.
These are no longer merely slogans shouted at demonstrations or on university campuses.
They have entered electoral politics. And they win votes.
The Muslim Brotherhood
It is a long, patient story, stretching from former U.S. President Barack Obama’s visit to Cairo to New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, with the Muslim Brotherhood in the background and increasingly intertwined with the left.
The Brotherhood question also emerged during El-Sayed’s campaign. His opponents accused him of having family connections to the organization, citing old social-media posts by his half-sister concerning their mother.
El-Sayed has denied any connection to the Muslim Brotherhood and has disavowed the organization. That distinction must be made.
But the larger ideological question does not disappear.
The Muslim Brotherhood represents a political vision rooted in Islamism. Its history and influence cannot simply be erased from the discussion because examining them has become politically uncomfortable.
And the question is certainly not whether Muslims have the right to participate fully in American political life. Of course they do.
The question is something else: What happens when hostility toward Israel, Zionism and, increasingly, the Jews becomes a useful instrument for winning democratic elections?
A thin skin
Are elections compatible with democracy when they empower ideas that can ultimately work against the principles of democracy itself?
That is the paradox.
Democracy cannot mean merely counting ballots. It also rests on principles: equality, freedom, pluralism, protection of minorities and the right of people with different religions and beliefs to live without discrimination.
Trump lost the elections. The Democrats won. That is the will of the voters.
But if hatred of Israel and the Jews becomes an electoral advantage; if an ideology that discriminates against women, homosexuals and nonbelievers gains political legitimacy; if American alliances and funds are redirected according to this worldview, then we cannot simply answer every objection by saying: This is democracy.
Are elections such as these compatible with democracy?
Or is democracy itself a thin skin, full of holes?
