Democrats tearing up the script on Palestine

Pundits in America’s strongest Democratic districts often treat elections like paperwork — something that can be predicted, not argued. But in Philadelphia, Democratic primary voters failed to follow the script. They chose Chris Rabb and they did so by a wide margin — one that his opponents could not blunt with the usual playbook of major political action committee pressure and national influence.
Rabb’s victory is more than local news. It is a preview of what the midterms are becoming: not only a contest of party brands but also a fight over who gets to shape political language, who gets to set boundaries on what candidates can say and whose moral clarity is treated as “too risky” to reward.
This is not happening in isolation. A pro-Palestine pastor, Frederick Haynes III, has won a Democratic primary in Texas to fill the House seat left behind by pro-Israel Rep. Jasmine Crockett. Others running on pro-Palestine platforms — who face opponents supported by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee — are also performing strongly. These include Senate hopefuls Texan James Talarico and Maine’s Graham Platner and, for Congress, Junaid Ahmed from Illinois and Adam Hamawy from New Jersey. In New York City, anti-AIPAC candidates such as Brad Lander, Claire Valdez and Darializa Avila Chevalier are expected to win.
In an interview, Rabb described his conflict with the party machinery. “My party never supported me in 10 years, especially in contested races,” he said. He did not frame himself simply as a victim but instead pointed to what he sees as a deeper problem: the idea that political success is granted by the party rather than earned by voters. “I beat my own party’s nominees in four races because I stood for principles,” he said.
That matters because so many modern campaigns are conducted under a silent contract: do not offend major powerbrokers, do not name the truths donors prefer to soften and avoid language that risks losing fundraising support. Rabb broke that contract, especially where AIPAC and pro-Israel influence is involved.
He described the pressure in unusually direct terms: “AIPAC despises me and they invested in both my main opponents.” In Rabb’s telling, support for the opposition was not only about getting votes but also shaping candidate behavior. “My opponents received significant money that was aimed to influence how they ran and the language they used,” he said.
That “language” point is central to understanding why the upcoming midterms are already intense, even before ballots are cast. Across the country, a growing number of candidates are challenging an established framework: that Palestine policy must be expressed through carefully managed language, not blunt ethical terms. Rabb insists that he refused the preferred vocabulary. “I used the term ‘genocide’ regarding what is happening in Palestine and Lebanon, and it was not a term that my opponent used,” he said.
For many voters, that is the difference between political performance and political integrity. For others, it is a litmus test of whether a candidate is willing to say what many people already believe but fear saying out loud. 

When major PAC influence often comes with messaging discipline, refusing that discipline can win candidates moral credibility.

Daoud Kuttab

Rabb’s argument is not just rhetorical. He anchors it in identity and solidarity. “I stand for justice, for collective liberation,” he said, adding that he represents “Black radical thoughts that understand international solidarity.” He also made an explicit connection between the Palestinian struggle and American racial justice: “I see Palestinians as I see myself, an African American.” He described his foundation as personal as well as political: “I come from a family with a strong legacy of social justice, common cause.” And he spoke through the lens of fatherhood: “I am a father of a Muslim son.”
This is where the stakes of the midterms become clear. In a cycle where major PAC influence often comes with messaging discipline, refusing that discipline can cost candidates donations. But it can also win them something donations cannot buy: moral credibility with voters who feel ignored or dismissed.
Rabb’s own district is overwhelmingly Democratic. As he said: “I won the primary for the 3rd District of Pennsylvania, which is the most Democratic of all Congress’ 435 seats, so there is no suspense in the general.”
That pattern is likely to show up again in the coming midterms, especially in contests where candidates have taken positions in support of Palestine that depart from mainstream institutional norms and where they have refused funding tied to pro-Israel political networks and AIPAC-backed agendas.
Rabb’s case suggests that voters are increasingly willing to punish candidates who appear to follow donor-defined boundaries. He framed his campaign as resisting the logic of “viability” bought with compromise: “It has always been my campaign to resist the urge to take any corporate PAC money.”
If you want a roadmap for what happens next, look at how Rabb described his strategy in elected office and why he believes his message translated into votes. “During my five terms in state office, I have invested in young people and people in the margins,” he said. In his telling, it is precisely those constituencies that have become the center of political energy — people who feel the system is built for billionaires and the privileged, not for those trying to pay rent, buy insulin or cover college costs.
“My agenda will address the most vulnerable members of society,” he said. His worldview extends to foreign policy. “I know that I will be a bold voice that opposes militarism and imperialism and seeks to advocate multilateral diplomacy.” And he was explicit about his opposition to war and occupation: “I am opposed to genocide anywhere, but especially in Gaza and Lebanon, and I advocate for the end of the war on Iran, Cuba, Venezuela and Greenland.”
The question now is whether other candidates — especially those who support Palestine, oppose genocide and reject major PAC funding tied to pro-Israel advocacy — can translate that integrity into electoral outcomes. Rabb’s win suggests they can.
And if he is right, then the midterms will be remembered for a shift in Democratic behavior, with voters demanding accountability not just on policy outcomes but also on the source of a candidate’s courage.
As Rabb put it in his final message to Palestinians: “I will remain a steadfast supporter of Palestinian rights.” In an election season full of carefully managed statements, that refusal to soften the truth may be exactly what voters reward — and exactly what the midterms will test again.

• Daoud Kuttab is an award-winning Palestinian journalist and former Ferris Professor of Journalism at Princeton University. He is the author of “State of Palestine Now: Practical and Logical Arguments for the Best Way to Bring Peace to the Middle East.”
X: @daoudkuttab