October 16, 2026
“Both of them have proven dangerous in their own way.”
After much deflection, that was ultimately Adbul El-Sayed’s non-answer when pressed in last week’s Michigan Senate debate on whether Israel or Iran poses a greater threat to the United States.
His statement raises a more troubling question of our politics as a whole: How deep must hostility toward Israel or any other ally get before major political candidates can no longer acknowledge the difference between America’s allies and enemies?
There are no perfect allies. Alliances don’t require that we always agree, or even always collaborate. I led the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East when I was in Congress, and I disagreed at times with American allies, including Israel. As a steadfast supporter of Israel, I’ve taken issue with certain Israeli government policies and continue to do so today as CEO of American Jewish Committee. But before debating policy, strategy, or aid levels, any candidate for federal office must be able to make the basic distinction between our allies and our enemies.
Failing to recognize the difference between a decades-long democratic ally that shares intelligence, drives technological innovation, and stands alongside the United States against common threats, and a regime whose leaders have chanted "Death to America," sponsors terrorist organizations, and brutally represses its own people, is not a mere policy disagreement. It is wilful ignorance, driven by ideological hostility rather than any strategic reality. It is also an insult to the memories of the 49 American citizens who were murdered by Iran’s proxy Hamas on October 7, 2023, and the 241 American servicemembers murdered by Iran’s proxy Hezbollah in the 1983 Marine barracks bombing in Beirut.
Aspiring and elected officials on both sides of the aisle have also perpetuated the false narrative that Israel essentially forced the U.S. to attack Iran, a convenient scapegoating of Israel and a staggering distortion of how any American administration makes military decisions.
This problem extends well beyond Dr. El-Sayed and Israel. We have seen versions of it on both extremes of American politics. We’ve seen it from candidates on the far right who fail to distinguish our ally Ukraine from its Russian invaders.
Members of Congress and other political leaders aren’t social media influencers or political commentators. They aren’t elected to be provocative. They vote on military assistance and our defense budget. They decide if and when we declare war. The job demands strategic and moral clarity. If we lose that clarity, where does that leave our NATO alliances? What’s to come of our relationships with Ukraine, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, or any other democratic ally if we set the precedent of walking away when we have tactical or other disputes with an allied government?
More fundamentally, alliances are not acts of charity. Our partnerships with our allies to counter shared threats and protect American lives are the basis of our relationships with NATO nations, with Japan, South Korea and Australia, and with Israel. Making America stronger is the point.
Failure to recognize the difference between democratic allies and authoritarian regimes–including those responsible for the murder of American service members–is unacceptable for anyone entrusted with shaping American foreign policy.
As a nonprofit advocacy organization, AJC doesn’t endorse or oppose candidates, and we’re not doing so here. But we do have a responsibility to challenge statements that ignore fundamental realities about America, our allies, and our enemies, especially when those statements come from those seeking one of our nation’s highest offices.
We can debate military aid, diplomatic strategy, and how to respond to disagreements with these allies. It’s imperative that we do. But if hostility toward Israel has become so consuming that candidates for federal office can no longer make these basic distinctions, then we've lost something far more important than any policy debate. We’ve lost the ability to recognize who stands with us and who stands against us. And if America can no longer make that distinction, how can America lead?
