Uncategorized
What American Jews fight about when they fight about Israel
(JTA) — Eric Alterman, born in 1960, says the view of Israel he absorbed growing up in a Jewish family in suburban Scarsdale, New York, was decidedly one-sided.
“I went on this nerdy presidential classroom thing when I was in high school,” he recalls, “and some Christian kid from the South raised his hand and said to the rabbi, ‘I don’t get it, if the Jews could have a state, why can’t the Palestinians?’ And I was like, ‘How dare you?’”
Alterman would go on to attend Cornell University, where he wrote his honors thesis on Israel, Vietnam and neoconservatism; spend a semester abroad at Tel Aviv University; study Israeli military history while earning his master’s degree in international relations at Yale, and research a dissertation on American liberalism and the founding of Israel as a doctoral student at Stanford.
Although he frequently writes about Israel as a contributing writer at the Nation and the American Prospect, Alterman is best known for his liberal analysis of the media and U.S. politics. He’s written 11 previous books, including one on Bruce Springsteen.
Yet he never stopped thinking about the widening gap between the idealized Israel of his youth and the reality of its relations with the Palestinians, its Arab neighbors and the West. Even when Israel’s revisionist historians were uncovering evidence of massacres and forced expulsions of Palestinians during the War of Independence, and Israeli politicians and intellectuals began asking why, indeed, the Palestinians didn’t deserve a state of their own, he saw that such discussions were considered blasphemous in most American Jewish circles.
Alterman, now a CUNY Distinguished Professor of English at Brooklyn College, explores that gap in his latest book, “We Are Not One: A History of America’s Fight Over Israel.” The book surveys U.S.-Israel relations, but with a focus on the ways defending Israel have shaped public discourse. It’s a book about arguments: within the administrations of 14 presidents, between Washington and Jerusalem, and mostly among Jews themselves.
Earlier this month we spoke about how the pro-Isael lobby became a powerful political force, the Jewish organizations and pundits who fight to limit the range of debate over Israel, and what he thinks is the high price American Jews have paid for tying their identities so closely to Israel.
“I try to take on shibboleths that in the past have shut down conversation and take them apart and sympathetically show the complexity of the actual situation that lies beneath — so that [criticism and disagreement] over Israel can be understood rather than whisked away by changing the subject, or what-aboutism, or by demonizing the person who is raising them,” said Alterman.
Our conversation was edited for length and clarity.
Jewish Telegraphic Agency: Let me start by congratulating you: It’s the first book about U.S.-Israel relations with a chapter named after a Bruce Springsteen album: “Working on a Dream.”
Eric Alterman: Nobody else has caught that. But it’s not about U.S.-Israel relations. It’s the first book about the debate over Israel in the United States. There’s a million books on U.S.-Israel relations.
So let’s define that more narrowly. The title reminds me of the United Jewish Appeal slogan over the years, “We Are One,” which was about American Jewish solidarity. So who is the “we” in your title, “We Are Not One”?
There are three or four different meanings. The “we” in this book are obviously the United States and Israel. An awful lot of people argue that the United States and Israel have identical interests in the world and that’s crazy, because Israel is this tiny little country in the Middle East and we’re a global superpower thousands of miles away. So obviously, we’re going to have differences. Number two, American Jews and Israeli Jews are very different people. They have very different life experiences. And they see things quite differently as evidenced by the political split between them. The title also refers specifically just to Americans, because we can’t even discuss most things anymore. The pro-Israel community, such as it ever was, is enormously split and it’s split in angry ways.
Much of your book is about what happens to American Jews when the idealized portrait of Israel’s founding and its presumed blamelessness in its actions toward the Palestinians comes up against reality. In that context, tell me a little about your choice to devote a chapter to the Leon Uris novel “Exodus,” an extremely sanitized version of Israel’s founding, and the 1960 movie based on it.
The influence of “Exodus” is something I didn’t understand until I wrote the book. It’s crazy, because Leon Uris was this egomaniac who wrote kind of a shitty book and said that he wanted to add a new chapter to the Bible, and he kind of succeeded. I was born in 1960. When I was growing up in suburban New York, every single family had “Exodus” on their shelves. When the movie came out Israelis understood this. They said, “We can just shut down our public relations office now.” And from the standpoint of reality the movie is worse than the book because it has Nazis — the Arabs in the book are working with Nazism. Uris didn’t have the nerve to do that. So the book created this idealized Israel and this idea of [Palestinians as] evil, subhuman Nazis.
What most Americans don’t understand, or choose not to understand, is that before the 1940s most Jews were anti-Zionist, or non-Zionist. This changed in the 1940s, when, as a result in part of the Holocaust, and the reaction to that, and the triumph of Zionists, they became intensely pro-Zionist, leading up to the creation of Israel. But after that, they kind of forgot about Israel. One might have given their children JNF boxes to carry on Halloween instead of UNICEF boxes, or maybe they paid to plant trees. But Israel doesn’t show up in the American Jewish Committee’s 1966 annual report until page 35 or 36, and Nathan Glazer’s 1957 book “American Judaism” says that the creation of the Jewish state has had “remarkably slight effects on the inner life of American Jewry.”
With the events of 1967, Uris’ idealized notion of Israel came together with this terrible fear of a second Holocaust, and the terror and shame and frightening nature of that combined to transform American Judaism overnight to an enormous degree.
You are referring to Israel’s lightning victory in the Six-Day War, which even non-religious Jews saw as a kind of miracle, and redemption two decades after the Holocaust. And that transformation, you argue, put defense of Israel, combined with Holocaust consciousness, at the center of Jewish identity.
More than just the center: It basically comprised almost all of it, for many secular Jews. I quote the neoconservative Irving Kristol in the book saying in 1976 that “the Holocaust and the founding of the state of Israel” was 100% of what Judaism means.
Which in turn led to a the tremendous pro-Israel lobbying efforts, political activism and punditry.
The budgets of American Jewish organizations overnight went from social services and liberal social justice causes to defense of Israel. And rabbis were replaced at the center of public discourse by the heads of these organizations — most of whom had no religious training or knowledge of history or Judaism.
Joe Biden, then vice president, speaks at the AIPAC 2016 Policy Conference in Washington, DC, March 20, 2016.
(Molly Riley/AFP via Getty Images)
One distinction you repeatedly make is between what most Jews believe compared to the Jewish organizations that claim to represent them. Surveys show the rank and file is consistently more liberal on Israel and less hawkish than the big organizations — a gap that showed up markedly around the Iraq War and the Iran nuclear deal.
Right. The big mistake that so many in the media make is that they go to the heads of these organizations who pretend to speak for American Jews when they don’t speak for American Jews. They speak for their boards and their donors.
The shift to Jewish lobbying on behalf of Israel coincides with an era in which there is seldom daylight between what Israel wants and what the United States wants or agrees to — often to the frustration of presidents. You are critical of those who exaggerate the pro-Israel lobby’s influence — folks like Stephen Walt and John J. Mearsheimer, authors of the 2007 book “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy” — but, at the same time, you write, referring to the Israel debate in America, about “the continued stranglehold that money, power, organizational structure, and clearly defined paths to personal career advancement continue to hold over the shape of foreign policy.” How will you respond to critics who will say your book is trafficking in the myth of Jewish power and its conspiracy-minded hold over American policy?
The short answer is, that’s why I wrote a 500-page book — basically, for two reasons: One, everything is incredibly complicated. And some of those complications are consistent with antisemitic myths, and therefore they have to be teased out and broken down in such a way that you’re telling the truth rather than portraying the myth.
If you say things without context, they sound antisemitic. I say that yes, Jews are very powerful in the media and many use that power on or about Israel. But I think if you lay out the examples that I use, if you look at them and examine them, I don’t see how you can conclude otherwise. The people I describe often say that about themselves — how much power and influence they yield.
Secondly, I’ve always found it just about impossible to discuss Israel with anyone, because you have to share exactly the same assumptions with that person. And if you don’t, then they take it personally, or you’re an antisemite, or, at best, you’re insufficiently sensitive to how important antisemitism is. And if you describe ways in which American Jews act in ways that are consistent with antisemitic myth, it has a way of shutting down the conversation.
Undoubtedly there’s some criticism of Israel that is motivated by antisemitism, but there’s an awful lot of reasons to be critical of Israel, particularly if you are a Palestinian or care about Palestinians. This accusation [antisemitism] has shut down the discourse and part of my hopes in demonstrating the complexities of this history is to open this up.
So let me ask about your own stake in this. Your educational background and relationship to Israel are similar in many ways to the writers and thinkers in your book who tolerate no criticism of Israel. I don’t know if you call yourself a Zionist, but you have some connection to Israel, and you’re also willing to tolerate critiques of Israel. What’s the difference between you and some of the other people who went on the same journey?
For the longest time I was comfortable with the words “liberal Zionist,” but I don’t think they have any meaning anymore. I don’t think it’s possible to be a liberal Zionist — you have to choose. Israel is the only putatively democratic country that prefers Trump to either Obama or Biden, and it’s not even close. And young Israelis are moving further in that direction and young American Jews are moving further in the opposite direction.
So you ask me if I am a liberal Zionist. I don’t think the word “Zionist” is useful at all anymore, because Israel is a country and it’s not going anywhere. I sometimes call myself an anti-anti-Zionist, because anti-Zionism is dumb. I’m very anti-BDS. If I thought [the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement] could end occupation, I would support it, even though the idea of boycotting Jews puts a bad taste in my mouth. But the theory behind BDS apparently, and I’ve spent a lot of time on this, is that the world will force Israel to give up its identity and turn the country over to its enemies. It’s inconceivable that Israel would do that and inconceivable the United States would pressure them to do that. So BDS is entirely performative. It’s more of a political fashion statement than anything else.
And to me, it speaks to the failure of Palestinian politics throughout history. I have a great deal of sympathy for the Palestinians and their bad politics because it’s based on two problems. One is that they have never been able to see the future very well. So they should have agreed in 1921 and 1937, or whenever they would have had the majority and they were being given a country by the British. They should have taken the lousy offer from Ehud Barak and Bill Clinton in 2000. I kind of get it because they have so many competing constituencies, and it’s impossible to satisfy all of them at the same time. I understand that. It’s hard to imagine a Palestinian politician who could say yes, and if you look at Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, in both cases, it’s hard to imagine making peace with them.
I read that in your book, and my first thought was, well, isn’t that basically just confirming what the pro-Israel right has always said — that Israel has no partner for peace? So maybe the best it can do is maintain a status quo that assures some security for Israel and a workable something for the Palestinians.
Well, number one I hold Israel significantly responsible for the conditions under which that has developed and that they can change those. And number two, that’s no excuse for the way Palestinians are treated, either in the occupation or in Israel. So yes, I agree. There’s no one to make peace with today, but there are many steps Israel could take that could vastly improve the lives of the Palestinians, both in the occupied territories and inside Israel. And there are a lot of steps they could take that could build confidence for a future that could weaken Hamas, that could strengthen the Palestinian Authority, so that one day peace would be possible. But they do the opposite.
An Israel supporter at a New York rally to tell the United Nations “no more anti-Israel documents or resolutions,” Jan. 12, 2017. (Don Emmert/AFP via Getty Images)
You talk about funding of Israel studies and Jewish studies departments as a reaction against fears of a pro-Palestinian takeover of academia. At the same time, you write how Palestinian supporters “succeeded in colonizing Middle East studies departments, student faculty organizations, and far-left political organizations.” Why does that matter in the long run if, as you also write, nothing’s really going to change American policy on Israel?
I gave a talk before the book came out at Tel Aviv University and someone asked me that question. I said, You care about these transformations for two reasons. One, you really will be all alone in the world. You’ll have the support of conservative [Evangelical] Christians who are in many respects antisemitic and are using you for their own purposes. So if you lose American Jews, you will be existentially alone in a way you’re not now and that strikes me as very unpleasant.
I do think that the quote-unquote pro-Israel community has a stranglehold on American politics that I can’t see changing anytime soon, and I think the change in the Democratic Party [that it will turn more pro-Palestinian] is very much exaggerated by both sides for their own reasons.
That being said, the people who are being trained now to be in the State Department and the National Security Council and the Defense Department and the think tanks and the places where the intellectual foundation of U.S. policy is made are learning something very different from what you and I learned in college. Right now, there’s no such thing as an influential Palestinian lobby in this country. There’s no pushing back. There’s no percentage for anyone opposing Israel who has a career interest in the future. That will change, and the whole shaping of the discourse will change and that will change the relationship between the United States and Israel. It’s not going to happen anytime soon, but it’s definitely going to happen.
As Jews in this country have remained largely liberal, Israel appears to be getting more illiberal, as we’ve seen with a new government that is more right-wing than any previously. And Israel has become more of a divisive element among Jews than a unifying force. As this gap appears to be widening, do you have any real hope for changing the discourse?
No, I don’t have any hopes for that. I don’t have anything optimistic to say about Israel. I think, politically speaking, from the standpoint of American Jews, everything is going in the wrong direction. But by demonstrating just how different Israeli Jews are than American Jews, and how little Israeli Jews care what American Jews think, I do think that it presents an opportunity for American Jews to think about what it means to be an American Jew in the Diaspora. Roughly half of the Jews in the world live in the United States. And since 1967 American Jews have defined themselves vicariously through Israeli Jews and taking pride in Israel. They expressed their identities by defending Israel and attacking the media when the media didn’t defend Israel.
Meanwhile, American Jews hardly ever go to synagogue. According to Pew, 20% of American Jews regularly attend synagogue and half of them are Orthodox, who are 10% of the community. What brought me back into Judaism was studying Torah. And hardly any American Jews are ever exposed to that.
So I think there’s an opportunity to reimagine Diaspora Jewry now that the Israel story doesn’t work, and it’s clear that it doesn’t work. Young American Jews are leaving or voting with their feet. They’re walking away. Israel-centric Judaism is in part responsible, although it’s not the whole story. Intermarriage is a big part of the story. The de-religionization of all groups is part of the story. But personally, I don’t see what a liberal American Jew would see in a Judaism that defines itself as it has for the past 50 years as defending Israel and remembering the Holocaust.
—
The post What American Jews fight about when they fight about Israel appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Trump says he plans to talk to Hezbollah amid Iran peace efforts
(JTA) — President Donald Trump said Monday that he planned to speak with U.S.-designated terrorist organization Hezbollah, during his remarks on an agreement the U.S. and Iran signed virtually the night before to end months of hostilities.
Israeli politicians are railing against the deal and insisting that the country will maintain its freedom of operation against Lebanon-based Hezbollah, which is funded by Iran and attacked Israel days after the U.S. and Israel launched the recent war in Iran at the end of February.
“The deal’s all signed,” Trump said in reference to the Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. and Iran announced on Sunday night. He made the comments in Evian, France, beside French President Emmanuel Macron in advance of a meeting with the G7. The Straits of Hormuz are partially opened and will be fully open by Friday, Trump added.
The “main thing is that Iran is not expected to have a nuclear weapon and they have fully agreed to that with strong policing powers,” Trump said.
Earlier in the day, U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance told ABC’s “Good Morning America” that the deal included significant sanctions relief in exchange for Iran’s agreement that it would give up its nuclear weapons program, asserting that Tehran would not have enough money to build atomic bombs.
He also noted that the memorandum had been “digitally” signed Sunday in advance of a formal signing ceremony in Geneva on Friday. In France, Trump said that Vance would represent the United States at that ceremony.
The details of the memorandum have not yet been made public, but it’s already clear from public statements including those made by Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif on X that Sunday’s deal is also expected to end the war between Israel and the Iranian proxy Hezbollah.
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baqaei told reporters that Lebanon was an essential part of the deal, according to the state-affiliated Tasnim news agency.
Though Trump has strongly pressured Israel to comply with the agreement to end hostilities, Israel has objected to the inclusion of Lebanon in the deal between the United States and Iran.
Trump told reporters in France that “we do need to straighten out the Lebanon thing,” adding that he intended to speak with Hezbollah as part of that effort.
Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz, speaking before Trump’s remarks, insisted that his country would continue to defend its northern border from Hezbollah attacks and would retain a presence in Lebanon.
“If Iran attacks Israel due to events in Lebanon — we will strike it with full force and make the power gap between us abundantly clear,” Katz said.
Israel was not a party to Sunday’s agreement, which it fears will strengthen Iran and Hezbollah and provide funds for Tehran to rebuild its nuclear and ballistic missile program. Several European leaders, however, welcomed the move. “This is a hugely significant moment. We have long called for de-escalation,” British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said, stressing that “it is vital that all parties seize this opportunity … To secure stability in the region.”
Macron told Trump that the deal was an “important step” toward peace.
Katz, for his part, noted that Israel has conveyed its position to the U.S. administration that it will keep troops in Lebanon, where low-level fighting continued on Monday.
“Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu clarified this to U.S. President Trump and other senior American officials, and I also made this clear yesterday to U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth,” Katz said.
Israel’s policy is to keep the IDF indefinitely in the security zones it’s established in Lebanon, Syria and Gaza in order to protect communities along the Israeli border, Katz added.
Sunday’s memorandum is expected to extend the shaky ceasefire of April 8 between Iran and the U.S. for 60 days, during which time the countries will negotiate a broader agreement addressing Iran’s nuclear program.
Trump told The New York Times on Sunday that he would renew military strikes on Iran if a nuclear agreement is not finalized.
The post Trump says he plans to talk to Hezbollah amid Iran peace efforts appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
American Jewish leaders across the political spectrum express alarm at Trump’s Iran deal
(JTA) — In 2018, as President Barack Obama struck a deal with Iran to constrain its nuclear production, American Jewish groups were divided: Those on the right excoriated the deal, saying it left Iran a major threat to Israel, while those on the left were more supportive.
This time around, as President Donald Trump has announced a new deal with Iran after months of war that the United States fought jointly with Israel, American Jewish groups are more unified: They aren’t happy.
On the right and the left, Jewish groups are expressing concerns about the deal that Trump and Iran announced on Sunday night, even as its terms have not yet officially come into focus.
Trump has emphasized that the deal reopens the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran closed after the war began on Feb. 28. U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance also told ABC’s “Good Morning America” that the deal would include significant sanctions relief in exchange for Iran’s agreement that it would give up its nuclear weapons program.
But it’s not clear what concessions Iran has made on the nuclear front, while there are no indications other issues key to Israeli security, including Tehran’s ballistic missile program and proxy network, have been addressed. Though Israel and the U.S. undertook the war jointly in February, Israel was not a party to the negotiations and has come under repeated criticism from Trump for jeopardizing talks with Iran.
“At worst, it’s an admission of defeat by the United States,” said Halie Soifer, CEO of the Jewish Democratic Council of America, in a statement on Monday about the deal. The group was founded in 2017 as a successor to the National Jewish Democratic Council, which supported the Obama-era deal, called the JCPOA.
Soifer added, “Donald Trump was so desperate to get a deal with Iran that he was unabashedly willing to push Israel aside, demonstrating — yet again — that Trump has no loyalty or commitment to anyone other than himself.”
The right-wing Zionist Organization of America, meanwhile, expressed gratitude to Trump for taking on Iran but reacted to the deal as it had to the JCPOA, with great concern.
“We call on the administration to disclose the terms as soon as possible,” President Morton Klein said in a statement. “However, the little that we know is deeply problematic.”
Klein’s statement outlined a host of qualms based on reporting about the deal’s possible conditions, including about signs that Trump had agreed to a deal that omitted terms that Trump previously said repeatedly were essential for a U.S. agreement.
“It makes no sense for the U.S. to immediately give up its pressure on the Iranian regime — the blockade that was strangulating Iran economically — without obtaining immediate removal of Iran’s nuclear stockpile, decommissioning of Iran’s nuclear facilities, and destruction of Iran’s deadly missile stockpile,” Klein said.
The progressive group J Street opposed the war from the start and said it welcomed its conclusion. “
At the same time,” it said in a statement, “it is important to acknowledge a basic reality: This costly and illegal war achieved none of the sweeping objectives that were repeatedly invoked to justify it. … The tragedy is that diplomacy had already produced a workable framework. The JCPOA was effectively constraining Iran’s nuclear program until President Trump chose to abandon it.”
AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobby that was one of the strongest opponents of the JCPOA, has not issued a statement about the new deal. But it retweeted a comment from Florida Republican Sen. Rick Scott listing a set of objectives that it’s not clear the agreement achieves.
“Any deal we make with Iran needs to permanently end their nuclear program, end their missile program, and stop their decades-long terror funding,” Scott said.
Scott’s fellow Republican senator, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, was among those on both sides of the aisle expressing qualms. “I am somewhat concerned that Iran’s view of the agreement seems different than what the American negotiating team is claiming,” Graham tweeted on Sunday, saying that he thought it was “imperative” that Vance present the terms of the deal to Congress for approval.
Vance said on Monday that the deal had been “digitally” signed already despite “technical things” that still needed to be worked out ahead of a ceremony planned for Switzerland on Friday. Speaking to U.S. media, he said he believed the terms were being mischaracterized and that the deal would result in an Iran without nuclear ambitions.
“If the Iranians are willing to give a long-term commitment, along with proper verification, to giving up that nuclear weapon, we’re willing to welcome them into the world economy to lift some sanctions and to turn over a new leaf in that relationship,” Vance said on “Good Morning America.”
Some Jewish groups have been more circumspect in their initial responses.
The Republican Jewish Coalition has not issued a statement on the deal, though it has retweeted Trump’s social media posts promoting it. The coalition did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Monday.
The Democratic Majority for Israel, meanwhile, urged Trump in a statement from its president, Brian Romick, to “bring in serious and experienced negotiators and technical experts to get this deal over the finish line, rather than relying on friends, family, and donors.” Romick also criticized Trump for cutting Israel out of negotiations — but he left some room for optimism.
“We continue to stand with the Israeli people who have been at war for more than two years, the people of Iran who have endured too many decades under a brutal regime and bravely demanded an end to oppression, as well as the Lebanese people who have lived under Hezbollah’s Iran-backed occupation for decades,” Romick said. “We will await the final text of this deal and hopefully bring this war to an end.”
The post American Jewish leaders across the political spectrum express alarm at Trump’s Iran deal appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Can a liberal Zionist win with the pro-Palestinian movement? Brad Lander is trying.
A voter canvass rally for Brad Lander in Brooklyn’s Carroll Park on Sunday looked, in many ways, like the kind of gathering that helped propel New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani to power.
There were chants of “Free Palestine.” There was a speech by a prominent Columbia University protest leader. Speakers denounced the war in Gaza as a genocide and called for an end to U.S. military aid to Israel. And there was a repeated emphasis on building a political movement rooted in solidarity between Jewish and Muslim New Yorkers.
The difference was the candidate at the center of it all.
Lander, the former city comptroller who is challenging incumbent Rep. Dan Goldman in the June 23 Democratic primary for New York’s 10th Congressional District, is a self-described liberal Zionist who continues to support Israel’s existence as a Jewish and democratic state and does not identify with the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement against Israel. During his time as comptroller, the city’s pension funds acquired holdings in Elbit Systems, Israel’s largest defense contractor, and touted it during an appearance on an Orthodox radio program.
Yet he has emerged as the highest-profile Jewish elected official in New York on the strength of progressive support. While he was already well known as a Brooklyn City Council member and then mayoral candidate, and gained further attention after getting arrested at a Manhattan ICE court last year, it is his positions on Israel that have come to define his campaign. Lander is embracing much of the language and policy agenda of the pro-Palestinian movement, including describing Israel’s conduct in Gaza as genocide and pledging to oppose additional U.S. military aid while the Israeli-Palestinian conflict continues.
Recent polling has shown Goldman trailing Lander.
Between Zionists and anti-Zionists
Over a plate of crispy potato latkes topped with an over-easy egg at Mile End Delicatessen in Boerum Hill on Friday morning, Lander reflected on the contradiction at the center of his congressional campaign: courting a district with a large and politically engaged Jewish electorate while relying on enthusiastic support from activists who oppose Zionism and believe Israel should not exist as a Jewish state.
“I am very comfortable being in coalition with people who have a different point of view on Israel and Palestine, who, I know, value everyone’s humanity,” Lander said.
That principle, he said, applies equally to what he called “illiberal Zionists” who prioritize Jewish lives over Palestinian lives and to anti-Zionists who reject Israeli suffering or, at the extreme, engage in antisemitic actions. Lander pointed to his decision not to attend last month’s Celebrate Israel Parade, citing the participation of Israeli right-wing politicians. Among those who showed up unannounced were Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who has denied the existence of a Palestinian people. Lander also noted that he stopped paying dues to the Democratic Socialists of America after Oct. 7, 2023, because the group’s New York City chapter participated in a Times Square rally the following day that drew widespread condemnation for celebrating the Hamas attacks on Israel.
Lander said that approach often requires difficult conversations with his allies and some uncomfortable moments on the campaign trail.
He recalled being approached recently on the subway by a young activist who recognized him when Lander was on his way to hear Rachel Goldberg-Polin, the mother of slain Israeli-American hostage, speak at Congregation Beth Elohim. “I don’t shake hands with Zionists,” the person said.
Some of the toughest exchanges have been with fellow Jews, he said.
At the Greek Jewish Festival on the Lower East Side earlier this month, one critic approached him demanding to know his “favorite intifada.” Another began shouting insults. Eventually, Lander said, the first critic turned on the second and urged him to stop yelling so they could have a real argument. “We had a Jewish argument,” Lander said. “Neither of us convinced each other, but we had a respectful conversation across lines of difference.”
Lander said he increasingly sees his role as creating space for conversations many people avoid. “I feel like one of my jobs right now is to try to open up difficult conversations,” he said. “I try to be clear about what I think, and then be in dialogue with people about it.”
A debate over Israel
Brad Lander, the former New York City comptroller, on Aug. 7, 2025. Photo by Victor J. Blue/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Lander is challenging Goldman with the backing of Mamdani, whose upset mayoral victory reshaped New York politics, in a campaign that has gone after Goldman as allegedly out of step with Democratic voters who seek change in Israel.
The divide was on full display during a recent televised debate, where the candidates spent the first 15 minutes of a one-hour forum sparring over the Celebrate Israel Parade, the Park Slope Food Coop’s vote to boycott Israeli products, U.S. military aid to Israel and investments in Israel bonds.
Lander is one of three candidates for Congress that Mamdani has endorsed in an early test of his political clout. The other two endorsees, who appear in campaign promotions alongside Lander and Mamdani, are democratic socialists who have drawn scrutiny for inflammatory comments about Israel. Mamdani has notably stayed out of the race to succeed retiring Rep. Jerry Nadler in Manhattan’s neighboring 12th Congressional District, which includes much of the Upper East and Upper West sides. In that race, the leading candidates refused to use the term “genocide” to describe Israel’s actions in Gaza and voiced support for funding Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system.
Goldman has assembled support from prominent Democratic and labor leaders and elected officials, including Gov. Kathy Hochul and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and many of the city’s Jewish elected officials.
The incumbent, touting an endorsement from the pro-peace group J Street, has argued that his record combines progressive values with strong support for Israel and drew a sharp contrast with Lander by presenting himself as the candidate of unwavering conviction. In remarks to Jewish leaders at the Met Council annual breakfast last month, Goldman declared, “I stand before you as a proud Jew and a proud Zionist — and those of us who feel that way can never waver.” He added, “What we need is more than anything is moral clarity. We need to stand for what we believe in, and I will do that right through the tape.”
Carrying the torch
The outcome of the closely watched Manhattan contest — featuring Assemblymembers Alex Bores and Micah Lasher, Nadler’s endorsed successor, along with Jack Schlossberg, the grandson of President John F. Kennedy who was raised Catholic by his mother — could also shape Lander’s place in Congress if he wins. Should Lasher lose, Lander or Goldman could become New York City’s only Jewish member of Congress.
In the interview, Lander said it’s “fair” to suggest he sees himself as carrying on Nadler’s legacy. He praised Nadler, who served 17 terms in Congress and represented large parts of the district before a 2022 redistricting, as a model of a Jewish lawmaker who combined a strong commitment to Israel with a defense of civil liberties and a willingness to challenge political orthodoxy, pointing to Nadler’s support for the Iran nuclear deal despite opposition from many American Jews.
He also invoked a less familiar predecessor. While reading Molly Crabapple’s recent book on the Jewish Labor Bund, Lander said he discovered the story of Meyer London, the socialist congressman who represented the Lower East Side in the early 20th century (and who was championed by the Forward). “One way to think about my campaign,” Lander said, “is that I’m running to be the second Bundist member of Congress from this district.”
Lander said that Nadler and London’s careers reflected a broader tradition of Jewish political engagement in New York that still resonates today. “One of the things I love about New York,” Lander said, “is that every candidate for office has to have a bagel order.” (Lander’s is an everything bagel with scallion cream cheese, tomato, lox and a light toast.) Nadler made headlines after he was televised carrying a bag of Zabar’s food with him to the second impeachment of President Donald Trump in 2021.
The Mamdani-Lander alliance
The message at the heart of Lander’s campaign was on display throughout Sunday’s rally in Brooklyn, a Jewish-Muslim interfaith canvass that featured the diverse coalition backing his candidacy. It echoed a theme that has become central to Lander’s political identity, stretching back to his years as a housing activist and organizer affiliated with Jews for Racial and Economic Justice and continuing through his alliance with Mamdani during last year’s mayoral race.
In a brief appearance, Mamdani revived the Knicks-inspired poem that has become a staple of social media posts during the NBA finals last week. “My mayor Muslim, my Brad Jewish… and I’m not going to go further,” Mamdani said to cheers. Lander offered to complete the rhyme: “My mayor Muslim, next congress member Jewish. Our city’s alive. Knicks in five. It’s up to us to build a world where everyone can thrive.”
Councilmember Shahana Hanif, Lander’s successor in the City Council, welcomed supporters to what she jokingly called “the beautiful country of Mamdanistan.” She said that solidarity requires difficult conversations and disagreements, adding that she had witnessed Lander’s commitment to both Muslim and Jewish communities.
Among the most notable speakers was Mohsen Mahdawi, the Palestinian activist who led the Columbia University Gaza War encampment and has been targeted in the Trump administration’s deportation efforts.
Mahdawi praised Lander for what he described as a moral break with much of the Jewish political establishment. “He was one of the first Jewish leaders to call and acknowledge what’s happening in Gaza is a genocide,” Mahdawi said. Mahdawi later led a “Free Palestine” chant that Lander joined.
Lander, in his remarks, told the crowd, “As a proud Jewish New Yorker, I will join you in that fight to end occupation and apartheid and genocide.”
The post Can a liberal Zionist win with the pro-Palestinian movement? Brad Lander is trying. appeared first on The Forward.
