Excerpt:
A recent donor call has revealed that Mallory McMorrow, a Democratic Senate candidate in Michigan, allegedly drafted a private “AIPAC position paper” described by a supporter as “outstanding.” The document has not been shared publicly; for many voters—especially Palestinian supporters and those concerned about foreign policy transparency—this raises critical questions. What is McMorrow’s true stance (and how public)? How does this compare to other candidates? With the Michigan primary framing broader Democratic splits over U.S. policy in Gaza, this development could shift political lines.
What we know so far
In a private donor call (August 20, 2025), Rob Kalman, a supporter of Mallory McMorrow and former Keego Harbor mayor/council member, said he has read an AIPAC position paper she drafted and called it “outstanding.” The paper has not been made fully public.
dropsitenews.com
McMorrow’s campaign says she has not received or filled out a questionnaire from AIPAC. They also state that the paper has not been confirmed publicly.
dropsitenews.com
On the same call, McMorrow’s campaign manager, Wellesley Daniels, responded that the campaign “has been talking to every organization that wants to talk about this issue … so we’ve had conversations with them.” But Daniels’ comments were vague about what was shared and with whom.
dropsitenews.com
Kalman claimed to know leadership both locally and nationally at AIPAC. He said they know “very clearly that I’m supporting Mallory … and I have read her AIPAC position paper.”
dropsitenews.com
The reporting also notes that McMorrow has publicly expressed positions on Gaza, and answered questions (e.g. about meeting Benjamin Netanyahu) via media appearances. But these do not appear to substitute for releasing the full position paper.
dropsitenews.com
+1
Why this matters: Foreign policy, transparency & political identity
Voters are increasingly demanding clarity from public officials about their positions on Israel, Gaza, U.S. aid, and related legislation—particularly after October 7, 2023, and the unfolding humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Michigan, with its large Arab-American and Muslim communities, is especially sensitive to how Democratic candidates position themselves.
Punchbowl News
This case intersects with several important issues:
Transparency vs. strategy
Drafting a position paper in private is common in politics. But when supporters claim knowledge of that document—while the candidate neither confirms nor publishes it—questions arise about whether voters are being served, or whether part of policymaking is being shielded from accountability.
The AIPAC factor
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is influential in many races, through endorsements, questionnaires, financial support, and relationships with candidates. If a candidate privately aligns with AIPAC’s litmus tests without fully disclosing how, voters may misjudge where they stand on key issues (aid, conditionality, boycotts, etc.)
dropsitenews.com
+1
Democratic Party fragmentation
The Michigan Senate primary is shaping up as a microcosm of national tensions: between the “establishment” Democratic wing, those pushing for more conditional foreign policy, and those urging more human rights–based diplomacy. McMorrow is positioned between Rep. Haley Stevens (seen as more pro-establishment/AIPAC-friendly) and Abdul El-Sayed, who is more openly critical.
Punchbowl News
+1
What remains unclear
The full text of McMorrow’s AIPAC position paper. What exactly does it say on aid, conditionality, Gaza, boycotts, Israel’s internal policy? Without the document, people can only infer from descriptions.
Whether McMorrow intends to release the paper publicly, or allow independent review.
How McMorrow’s positions compare in real detail—vote history, public statements—with those of Stevens and El-Sayed.
The extent to which AIPAC or affiliated groups might endorse or fund McMorrow, given this reported paper.
Whether McMorrow’s supporters or campaign will commit to more transparency on foreign policy issues going forward.
“If she’s flirting with AIPAC during a genocide, I’m off to donate. To Abdul.”
— Comment from the Drop Site News thread, reflecting deep frustration among voters about silence on these issues.
dropsitenews.com
What voters should ask
Will McMorrow release the full position paper (or a redacted version) so that constituents can know her true stance?
What are her positions on conditional aid to Israel, laws against boycotts (BDS), and speech relating to protesting Israeli policy?
How does she plan to balance support for diplomatic pressure with humanitarian concerns for Palestinians?
How will her foreign policy views affect local Michigan issues—immigration, public health, housing, environmental justice, etc.—for voters who see Israel/Palestine as one among many moral tests?
Where this aligns (and misaligns) with Green Party / pro-Palestine values
From a Green Party perspective—where human rights, international justice, environmental justice, and opposition to imperialistic interventions are central—this story underlines several tensions:
Alignment: Many Green Party and pro-Palestine advocates insist on transparency, full disclosure, conditions on foreign policy aid, support for basic human rights, and accountability. If McMorrow’s paper affirms conditional aid, respects Palestinian human rights, and stands against indefinite uncritical support, that would be more aligned.
Misalignment: If the paper endorses unconditional aid, resists any constraints, opposes boycotts, or is otherwise mostly in line with AIPAC’s traditional litmus tests without acknowledging the humanitarian crisis, then there’s potential misalignment with those values.
The question for Green Party-aligned voters will be whether McMorrow’s unstated positions drift toward the same old paradigms, or whether there is space for transformative policy that places justice for Palestinians and democratic accountability first.
How this reflects on Michigan’s political landscape
Michigan has seen growing split among Democrats over Israel/Palestine. Arab-American, Muslim, progressive, and younger voters demand more than symbolic statements. They want policies that reflect human rights and stop massive civilian suffering.
Punchbowl News
McMorrow’s position (or lack of publicly shared one) could mobilize or demobilize those segments, depending on whether she is seen as merely dog-whistling toward AIPAC donors or being forthright with her constituents.
Stevens is perceived as more established with stronger ties to traditional Democratic networks and more firmly pro-AIPAC. El-Sayed is perceived as more willing to critique U.S. policy in Gaza openly. McMorrow sits in the middle—and that middle is increasingly contested ground.
Takeaway
Voters deserve more than vague assurances about “position papers.” In a landscape where foreign policy decisions cost lives, transparency is not optional. If McMorrow truly has drafted a position paper praised by AIPAC leaders, the document should be released for public scrutiny. It’s part of democratic integrity.
From the Dearborn Blog’s perspective: Green values call on candidates to be open, to center human rights, and to reject undue influence by foreign policy lobbying that treats humanitarian crises as secondary. We hope all candidates in Michigan will be honest about what they support—not just what’s politically expedient.
Sources
Ryan Grim, “Michigan Democratic Senate Candidate Privately Drafted ‘Outstanding’ AIPAC Position Paper, Supporter Claims,” Drop Site News, September 10, 2025.
dropsitenews.com
Punchbowl News, “The Democrats’ Israel split is defining the Michigan Senate primary,” August 20, 2025.
Punchbowl News
Disclaimer
Dearborn Blog aims to report fairly and accurately based on the best available sources. The information in this article is drawn from public reporting, leaked audio as described by sources, statements by campaign representatives, and secondary news media. Dearborn Blog does not guarantee the accuracy of leaks nor the full context of private conversations. Our goal is to inform, not to defame. Readers should verify independently and consider multiple sources when evaluating political claims.
Dearborn Blog 