Abdul El-Sayed is right about the future of Israelis and Palestinians
The Michigan Senate nominee’s vision of self-determination for all provides a coherent alternative to the one-state partisans on both the left and right.
Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed speaks to supporters at an election-night rally in Detroit, Michigan. Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images
Contributing Columnist, The ForwardJay MichaelsonAugust 5, 2026
No doubt, many liberal Jews are uneasy regarding Abdul El-Sayed’s narrow victory in yesterday’s Michigan Democratic primary. Even if they support many of his domestic policy positions — Medicare for All, taxes on billionaires — El-Sayed’s views on Israel may trouble them.
But those views merit a second look.
Yes, like New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, El-Sayed is a young, Muslim progressive. But his views are markedly different — and, to my mind, more sophisticated and more nuanced. In fact, I agree with them.
El-Sayed’s most articulate statement of his views came midway through an interview with New Yorker editor-in-chief David Remnick published the day before the primary. The first half of the interview focused on El-Sayed’s signature issue of healthcare (El-Sayed is a physician), but then Remnick asked:
[I]t seems that you get very prickly when you’re asked the question: Does Israel have a right to exist? You come from a country that, in the late seventies, made its accommodation, a kind of rough peace, between Egypt and Israel…. But what is your hope for a resolution in the Middle East? Is it two states? Is it one state? What underlies your sense of the situation there?
El-Sayed gave a 473-word response, which, itself, should inspire confidence — in fact, his first words were “Well, David, since you’re giving me some time for nuance — I deeply appreciate it — allow me some nuance.” Just that sentence stands in stark contrast to the polarizing posturing that is common on both left and right. After noting that in Michigan, “there are communities where the median income is fourteen thousand dollars a year. And those kids go without good schools and those kids go without functional infrastructure,” El-Sayed continued:
I believe in equal rights to peace, dignity, and self-determination, for Palestinians and Jewish Israelis alike. And I believe that it is not my job as an American policymaker to decide what the ultimate peace should be. But it is my job to make sure that our resources are stewarded correctly for the people I’m responsible for: those kids going to those broken schools.
Already, El-Sayed’s statement is a useful contrast to Mamdani’s. He is not pontificating about the abstract legitimacy of Israel or Palestine; on the contrary, he is insisting on the pragmatic view, that I share, that “what the ultimate peace should be” must be decided by both Palestinians and Israelis — a position rejected by both the Zionism-is-colonialism crowd on the left and the Jewish supremacists on the right.
El-Sayed then continued:
I also believe that it is my job to do that doubly when we exist in a kind of hypocrisy around how we’ve thought about that issue for a very long time. The very same people who tell you you have to believe in a two-state solution are constantly aiding, arming, and abetting an Israeli government that has been dead set on foreclosing on the possibility of a Palestinian state since we’ve been funding them. So forgive me if I’m not going to play the cosplay thing, where I allow the money that should be spent taking care of our kids to be sent to a military that has done a genocide — at baseline, does apartheid, and is now attempting the annexation of southern Lebanon — to foreclose on the possibility of Palestinian self-determination.
This is a critical point that El-Sayed repeated toward the end of the interview. Centrists and many liberals demand that progressives affirm the validity of the state of Israel, and by extension the two-state solution. Yet the people most obviously (and proudly) undermining the two-state solution are the members of Benjamin Netanyahu’s government. This is an outrageous asymmetry. Those on the left are called out for opposing two states, but those on the right get a pass when they make two states impossible to achieve.
,
Now, I know some readers stopped paying attention when El-Sayed used the term “genocide,” a term I have written about here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. But notice that he hedges, qualifying it with “at baseline, does apartheid,” which surely describes the political situation in the West Bank, where one population has voting rights, full civil rights, freedom of movement, government subsidized housing and rights to expand civic boundaries, while most of the other population has none of the above. (The existence of military rule, with its attendant security rationales, does not change this reality on the ground.)
And just as defenders of Israel rightly note that Israel has not been convicted of genocide by a court of law, Israel has not been acquitted, either, and there is significant evidence that the crime has, in fact, been committed. (Ironically, the Hebrew term retzach am may be a better one than the legal term “genocide.” Whatever the death count in Gaza, and whatever the validity of Israel’s mission to destroy Hamas and free the hostages, surely the destruction of an entire civil society, with a plan not for its rebuilding but for its displacement by Trump-branded hotels, is the murder — or at least manslaughter — of a nation, is it not?)
Finally, El Sayed concluded:
So here’s what I believe. I believe we have a responsibility to uphold international law. I believe we have a responsibility to treat every single state the same way, around international law. I believe in a process that offers a free Palestinian people the equal rights to peace, dignity and self-determination that a free Jewish Israeli people ought to have. And then I will support whatever the outcome is that a free Palestinian people and a free Jewish Israeli people decide is the right outcome. If that’s two states, great, I’m for it. If it’s one state, I’m for that. If it’s this “land for all” model, or twenty-three states, or whatever it is that they decide. But I am not O.K. saying that, as a senator from Michigan, I’m going to take tax dollars from Michigan, send them to a foreign government that does heinous things in contraposition to the ideals that I support, and then sit here and be, like, yes, but I’m for a two-state solution—when I know that the current status quo is never ever going to allow that to happen.
To me, this response has both integrity and reasonableness. I’m not saying it is the only valid political position; reasonable, honest people can disagree about whether aid to Israel should be continued, conditioned, or eliminated. (Recall, Netanyahu himself has called for it to be phased out.) But it is not beyond the pale. It is, roughly, the view of non-anti-Zionist progressive organizations like the New Israel Fund, J Street, T’ruah, and others: there should be a negotiated solution between Israelis and Palestinians, whatever form that takes, but that the current government in Israel is squarely opposed to finding one, as they have been since the 1990s when it was still a realistic possibility. Traitor, they called Yitzhak Rabin at the time.
In fact, in the greatest irony of all, the anti-Zionist left and the Jewish supremacist right offer the same proposal: one state, with our group in charge. (Yes, the left’s version is ostensibly a democracy, and the right’s is not, but they are both one states with the minority population lacking self-determination.) Neither of these is realistic. It is impossible to turn back the clock to 1947, before the State of Israel and before the mass immigration of the 1940s and 1950s. And it is impossible to repress Palestinians into submission or exile; Palestinians are not going anywhere, no matter how much right-wing Zionists wish that they would.
Abdul El-Sayed, unlike Mayor Mamdani, shares this understanding: that a one-state solution, imposed by Israel or by outside political forces, is unjust. But El-Sayed also knows that it is Israel’s government that, at present, is doing the most to impose it. And to change that reality, we need a change in American policy. I would submit that that view is shared by a numerical majority of American Jews, and by all who cling to the hope, however flickering, of a Jewish and democratic Israel.