Th
Thank you for reading Economic Memos. The blog explores multiple topics in addition to politics including personal finance and investments. To explore my paid coverage, try a 14-day free trial or subscribe at 50 percent off, for an annual fee of $25. Your support helps sustain this independent work.
The candidates competing in the 14 races covered in my expanded Senate map offer sharply different approaches to Israel. Some are clearly antagonistic to idea of a Jewish state and advocate ending American military assistance altogether. Others attempt to create nuanced position and distinguish between offensive weapons and defensive protection. Three candidates have a long record of supporting Israel and the traditional security relationship. Two candidates are mum.
These differences deserve to be recorded before Election Day. Afterward, competing factions will be tempted to claim that the results vindicate their approach.
The following classifications reflect public statements, campaign messaging, and voting records. They include 13 Democrats and Nebraska independent Dan Osborn. The categories consider rhetoric and political judgment as well as military assistance; candidates grouped together do not necessarily support identical policies.
Highly critical
Maine — Troy Jackson: Has described the Gaza war as genocide and pledged to oppose American taxpayer-funded military assistance to Israel. His rhetoric became particularly troubling when he attributed Jewish Mainers’ objections to the genocide label to their identity and the Holocaust. He subsequently apologized for generalizing about their views while maintaining his accusation against Israel. To me, dismissing disagreement this way raises a question about his willingness to listen to constituents whose concerns deserve a substantive answer. His position; his comments and apology.
Michigan — Abdul El-Sayed: Has characterized Israel’s conduct as genocide and advocated withdrawing both offensive and defensive military assistance. My concerns extend beyond those positions. In “El-Sayed Is No JFK: A Question of Judgment,” I discussed his comparison of Israel’s government to Hamas, his response to a synagogue attack—for which he later apologized—and his willingness to campaign with Hasan Piker despite Piker’s extremist statements. These episodes raise questions about judgment, rather than religion.
My Substack follow-up examines a 2012 statement supporting Mohamed Morsi’s extraordinary powers and calling for purging Egypt’s media and police. The published signatory list includes a name identified in reporting as El-Sayed’s. The statement also expressed concern about concentrated presidential power and requested an endpoint to the exceptional declaration. Both elements belong in an accurate account; El-Sayed should explain whether he signed it and how he now assesses it.
Minnesota — Peggy Flanagan: Has accused the Israeli government of genocide and opposed offensive weapons sales, while supporting a two-state solution. My additional concern is her response to extremism within her own political coalition. As of October 21, reporting indicated that she had not addressed the planned appearance by Hasan Piker with Ilhan Omar and Omar Fateh, even as Amy Klobuchar, Angie Craig, and other Minnesota Democrats condemned it. Her position; the controversy and Democratic responses.
Nebraska — Dan Osborn: His campaign shared an advertisement attacking Pete Ricketts’s support from AIPAC and defense contractors. Its imagery included a smiling Ricketts beside a cartoon hospital being bombed. Don Bacon condemned the messaging as anti-Jewish and anti-Israel. Readers can judge the advertisement shared by Osborn’s campaign and Bacon’s response themselves.
Critical of Israeli policy while supporting specified assistance
Texas — James Talarico: Opposes offensive weapons sales while supporting defensive assistance, including Iron Dome. He supports a two-state solution and removing Hamas from power. His position.
An exchange with Dallas Rabbi Holly Levin Cohn at an October CNN town hall illustrated the difficulty of maintaining trust across this divide. Cohn challenged his account of humanitarian aid restrictions; Talarico acknowledged the responsibility that comes with his words and promised to keep listening. The exchange.
Kansas — Adam Hamilton: Would stop offensive assistance while preserving defensive support. He has criticized Israel’s conduct in Gaza but rejected the genocide label because he does not believe Israel intends to destroy an entire people. He also argues that the terminology obstructs the conversation needed to reach a solution. That strikes me as a serious distinction: recognizing civilian suffering does not require accepting every accusation made against Israel. His explanation.
Hamilton’s approach suggests a candidate interested in solving problems rather than winning an argument over terminology. A prominent Methodist pastor, he brings an established public profile to a difficult race against Roger Marshall. Kansas remains a formidable challenge for a Democrat, but Hamilton deserves attention as a candidate who may broaden his party’s appeal without abandoning concern for either Israelis or Palestinians. A profile of his candidacy.
Iowa — Josh Turek: Supports conditioning assistance on international humanitarian law and civilian protection. He also voted for an Iowa resolution affirming Israel’s sovereignty and right to confront terrorist threats. Turek appears to be handling this issue well: concern for Palestinian civilians accompanies recognition of Israel’s legitimate security needs. His record.
Georgia — Jon Ossoff: Has supported blocking particular weapons transfers while defending others. His stated distinctions concern civilian harm, the intended recipients, and Israel’s ability to deter attacks. His record supports describing him as selective about assistance, rather than opposed to the security relationship. His record.
Ossoff nevertheless frustrated me when he invoked Ronald Reagan’s restrictions on weapons transfers to defend his own position. Other Jewish supporters also criticized that argument. Reagan’s record included pressure on Israel, but it also included a subsequent expansion of strategic cooperation. In November 1983, after the Beirut barracks bombing, his administration announced a stronger military relationship and movement toward lifting restrictions on cluster munitions. Criticism of Ossoff’s analogy; the November 1983 agreement.
For Jewish voters who share my concerns, Republican Mike Collins offers little reassurance. Reporting about his son-in-law’s white nationalist activity and controversies involving former staff members raises separate, serious questions. Disappointment with Ossoff does not make Collins an acceptable alternative in my judgment. The debate over Collins’s record.
New Hampshire — Chris Pappas: Supports the security relationship while criticizing Netanyahu and calling for a reset. He has objected to policies he considers disproportionate or extreme and emphasized Palestinian humanitarian needs. His record.
Supportive of continued military assistance
North Carolina — Roy Cooper: Generally opposes withholding assistance from Israel. Supports other pressure to secure humanitarian access and the return of hostages. His position.
Ohio — Sherrod Brown: Supported military assistance and voted against three attempts to block specific arms transfers in November 2024. His voting record.
Alaska — Mary Peltola: Her House record includes support for military assistance and legislation opposing the withholding of approved weapons transfers. Her record.
Insufficient public evidence
Mississippi — Scott Colom: His public statements do not establish a sufficiently detailed military-aid position for confident classification. Available record.
South Carolina — Annie Andrews: The sources reviewed did not establish a clear position on American military assistance to Israel. Available record.
What can the election tell us?
These races offer an observational comparison because candidates’ positions on Israel reflect other factors that also influence election outcomes. The useful question is whether candidates in each group outperform or underperform expectations based on state partisanship, previous results, incumbency, and opponent strength.
Pairwise comparisons across states may nevertheless offer useful clues.
A Sherrod Brown victory in Ohio coupled with an Abdul El-Sayed defeat in Michigan would deserve attention.
A Josh Turek victory or overperformance in Iowa, or an Adam Hamilton victory or overperformance in Kansas, coupled with a Peggy Flanagan defeat or underperformance in Minnesota would raise eyebrows.
Such outcomes would not isolate Israel as the cause: candidate experience, opponents, and other issues could explain the differences. But a consistent pattern across several races could suggest an electoral cost or benefit.
Recording these classifications and proposed comparisons before Election Day should make convenient explanations afterward harder to sell.
Thank you for reading Economic Memos. The blog explores multiple topics in addition to politics including personal finance and investments. To explore my paid coverage, try a 14-day free trial or subscribe at 50 percent off, for an annual fee of $25. Your support helps sustain this independent work.