Michigan Democrat Slams Bernie Sanders Over Israel Stance After Primary Defeat

When the Michigan Senate primary wrapped up in early August, Rep. Haley Stevens found herself on the wrong side of the ballot, edged out by progressive newcomer Abdul El‑Sayed. A few weeks later, she turned her attention to an unexpected target: Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

In an interview with The Jerusalem Post, Stevens said Sanders’ record on the Israeli‑Palestinian conflict “is a sickness that needs to end.” She added, “I really don’t know what Bernie Sanders has done for peace in the Middle East, for Palestinian dignity; I can’t think of anything he’s totally done.” The language was stark, and the comparison to “extremism or jihad” – though vague – hinted at deeper frustration.

Sanders, who has long advocated cutting U.S. military aid to Israel and has been a vocal critic of Israeli policies, did not immediately respond to requests for comment from Fox News Digital. His stance has sparked heated debate within the Democratic Party, especially as public opinion on Israel has shifted dramatically in the past three years.

Stevens tried to frame her criticism as a defense of America’s long‑standing alliance with Israel. “I think that Israel is more than just a punching bag for some of the challenges that America is facing,” she told the newspaper. “There’s this bizarre obsession that has reached a pitch level with calling out one country, one tiny country in the Middle East.” Her remarks painted the issue as a matter of national interest rather than solely a foreign‑policy dispute.

Ironically, while she denounced Sanders, Stevens was not shy about taking aim at Israel’s own leadership. She called Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a “problem,” acknowledging that the Israeli government’s actions have also drawn criticism from many quarters.

After her loss, Stevens quickly threw her support behind El‑Sayed, the candidate who beat her in the primary. Yet she cautioned him against aligning with far‑left streamer Hasan Piker, a figure she described as a liability for the Democratic ticket. “It certainly makes sense to get rid of this Hasan Piker affiliation,” she said on Fox News’s “The Sunday Briefing.” She also argued that her platform – which includes expanded health care, stronger democratic reforms, and support for Black‑owned businesses – is more pragmatic than the Republican alternative represented by Mike Rogers.

When asked whether El‑Sayed had taken steps to reassure Jewish, Black, or older Democratic voters who had backed Stevens, the former congresswoman pointed to her own close finish as evidence that a “Zionist Democrat” could still thrive. “I came really close [to winning the primary] and I’m still a Democrat,” Stevens asserted. “I want the people who share my views and values to feel safe and to feel heard in the Democratic Party.”

The backlash was swift. Qasim Rashid, a SiriusXM host and human‑rights attorney, called Stevens’ comments “profoundly disappointing.” He reminded listeners that numerous human‑rights organizations have documented civilian deaths in Gaza and that U.S. laws, such as the Leahy Law, call for a halt to aid to governments implicated in mass atrocities. “By continuing to insist on arming Israel as it is violating international human‑rights law, Haley Stevens is on the wrong side of history,” Rashid said.

Public sentiment appears to be moving in a similar direction. A recent NBC News poll conducted at the end of February found that only 32 % of Americans hold a positive view of Israel, down from a 47‑34 split just three years earlier. The same poll showed 39 % viewing Israel negatively, a shift that many analysts attribute to the prolonged Gaza conflict and growing fatigue with the war.

Inside the Democratic Party, the divide over Israel has become a micro‑cosm of larger ideological battles. On one side sit longtime establishment figures who see Israel as an indispensable ally; on the other, progressive voices urging a re‑evaluation of U.S. military aid and calling for a more even‑handed approach to Palestinian rights.

For Stevens, the issue is personal as well as political. Having built a career on a platform that blends pro‑business policies with progressive social stances, she now finds herself navigating a party that seems increasingly split on foreign‑policy orthodoxy. Whether her sharp words against Sanders will resonate with voters – or simply alienate a growing segment of the Democratic base – remains to be seen.

What is clear, however, is that the conversation about Israel, Zionism, and U.S. aid will not disappear any time soon. As the next election cycle looms, candidates on both sides of the aisle will have to decide where they stand, and how loudly they are willing to speak.