Anti-Semitism had mixed results in Tuesday’s primary elections, prevailing in one Senate contest while going down in flames in another. The two races present a highly suggestive contrast between the health of the two parties on the issue of anti-Semitism.

South Carolina

In South Carolina, Senator Lindsey Graham (R) won a comfortable majority in his quest for a fourth term in the U.S. Senate, beating out five challengers with 56.8% of the vote, with 99% of votes counted.

The only serious challenge came from Mark Lynch, a Greenville businessman who lent $5 million of his personal fortune to his campaign. Graham took the challenge seriously, spending more than $13 million on ads in the primary, and the investment paid off. Lynch took 28.9% of the vote, or just over half of Graham’s tally.

Lynch ran on what he called an “America First” platform, but he adopted a campaign brand that appealed to the more conspiratorial elements of the MAGA movement, especially the anti-Semitic elements. Among the most prominent figures to endorse Lynch were Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and former National Counterterrorism Center Director Joe Kent.

When Massie lost his Republican primary race for reelection last month, he blamed Israel, telling supporters, “I would have come out sooner, but I had to call my opponent to concede, and it took a while to find Ed Gallrein in Tel Aviv.” Kent left his counterterrorism position with an anti-Semitic screed that unconvincingly blamed Israeli influence for the Iran war.

Such anti-Semitism even infiltrated Lynch’s campaign. His campaign’s political director, Evan Mulch, posted an image on X of a foot stomping on the Talmud, describing it as a “hate filled book towards Jesus Christ.” After Graham pointed this out, Lynch refused to fire Mulch, replying instead, “It is unsurprising that in his desperation, Lindsey has chosen Holy Week to throw more slop against the wall.”

In an interview with local news WYFF, Lynch differentiated himself from Graham by declaring, “I’ll support America because that’s who I’ll be employed by.” The comment insinuated that Graham is employed by someone other than America; for those following the race, the shadowy employer could be none other than Israel. Months earlier, Paul Dans, another anti-Semitic Graham challenger, had claimed, “Israel picks Lindsey Graham’s staff, but they do not pick mine.” Dans eventually dropped out of the race and endorsed Lynch.

Graham explicitly countered this anti-Semitic messaging, “When you step on the Talmud with a boot, I don’t think that’s American; I don’t think it’s Christian. I don’t think there’s any place in running for higher office for people who engage in that behavior.”

Furthermore, he insisted, “Israel doesn’t get America in trouble. Israel saves America from trouble. The radical Islamists over there can’t come over here because Israel won’t let them.”

On June 9, South Carolina Republicans placed their stamp of approval on Graham’s position, sending him well over the top of his anti-Semitic challenger.

As the Republican nominee, Graham must be considered the clear favorite in a state Trump carried by nearly 18 percentage points in 2024. Democrats made Graham a top target during his last reelection campaign in 2020, but, despite some close polls and a combined $280 million spent on the race, Graham won reelection by a comfortable 10 percentage points.

Maine

Further up the Atlantic seaboard, a far different story unfolded in another Senate primary, as Maine Democrats selected Graham Platner as their nominee to challenge incumbent Senator Susan Collins (R). Platner won the nomination by a striking margin of 100,000 votes, beating out current Maine Governor Janet Mills (D) with 71.8% to her 19.5%. Mills did suspend her campaign earlier this spring, although her name still appeared on the ballot. However, Mills withdrew from the race because a University of New Hampshire poll showed her trailing Platner 76% to 10% — close to his actual margin of victory.

Ever since Mills suspended her campaign, Platner has faced one scandal after another. Multiple former girlfriends accused him of physically abusive behavior, his wife caught him exchanging explicit text messages with multiple other women (his campaign gave the number as “up to six”), and he still maintained an active account on Kik, a messaging app used by predators, with a profile picture appearing to show Platner in nothing but a towel. Platner’s own former campaign manager published a Washington Post op-ed warning that her personal experience with the man led her to believe he would be bad for Maine.

From the perspective of anti-Semitism, however, the most concerning revelation about Platner was the tattoo on his chest. For 20 years, Platner sported a Totenkopf tattoo, a symbol used by Nazi guards at concentration camps. The self-described World War II history buff claims that he never knew the meaning of the symbol, and he had another tattoo placed over it once the information was revealed. However, multiple acquaintances insist that Platner bragged about “my Totenkopf” over the many years when he supposedly did not know what it was.

In line with the anti-Semitism suggested by this tattoo, Platner has insisted during the campaign that Senator Collins is “bought and paid for by Benjamin Netanyahu.”

The Totenkopf revelation was publicly reported before Mills dropped out of the race. Nevertheless, Democratic primary voters in Maine coalesced behind Platner, and he rode a wave of popularity to an overwhelming victory.

Relative State of Parties

These two electoral results demonstrate the relative health of America’s two major political parties on the issue of anti-Semitism. In April, Pew Research discovered that Democrats are now twice as likely as Republicans to “have a very/somewhat unfavorable opinion of Israel” (80% to 41%). In May, a New York Times/Siena poll found that 74% of Democratic voters opposed “providing additional economic and military support to Israel,” 60% sympathized more with Palestinians (compared to 15% who sympathized more with Israel), and 48% said their party was too supportive of Israel.

It is fashionable in some circles to draw a distinction between anti-Semitism (hostility against Jews as such) and what is dubbed anti-Zionism (hostility against Israel as a nation). But this argument is not very persuasive. Since Israel is the only majority-Jewish nation in the world, it is difficult to distinguish hostility toward it from hostility toward Jews as a whole. Additionally, many alleged “anti-Zionists” demonstrate their hostility towards Israel by intimidating and attacking Jews living and holding citizenship in other nations, such as the fatal terrorist attacks against Jews at Bondi Beach, Australia or Boulder, Colo.

More often than not, anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism, and its influence in the Democratic Party has grown strong enough to even elect candidates for its cause. On the Republican side, anti-Semitism is not quite as powerful, and it often flames out in defeat. But it remains a threat, and its presence cannot go unnoticed.