Uncategorized
A new book made me appreciate Jewish Sunday schools — and the volunteer women who have powered them
(JTA) — As a kid I went to Sunday school at our Reform synagogue. I didn’t hate it as much as my peers did, but let’s just say there were literally dozens of other things I would have preferred to do on a weekend morning.
As a Jewish adult, I had a vague understanding that Sunday school was a post-World War II invention, part of the assimilation and suburbanization of American Jews (my synagogue was actually called Suburban Temple). With our parents committed to public schools and having moved away from the dense urban enclaves where they were raised, our Jewish education was relegated to Sunday mornings and perhaps a weekday afternoon. The Protestant and Catholic kids went to their own religious supplementary schools, and we Jewish kids went to ours.
In her new book “Jewish Sunday Schools,” Laura Yares backdates this story by over a century. Subtitled “Teaching Religion in Nineteenth-Century America,” the book describes how Sunday schools were the invention of pioneering educators such as Rebecca Gratz, who founded the first Sunday school for Jewish children in Philadelphia in 1838. As such, they were responses by a tiny minority to distinctly 19th-century challenges — namely, how to raise their children to be Jews in a country dominated by a Protestant majority, and how to express their Judaism in a way compatible with America’s idea of religious freedom.
Although Sunday schools would become the “principal educational organization” of the Reform movement, Yares shows that the model was adopted by traditionalists as well. And she also argues that 20th-century historians, in focusing on the failures of Sunday schools to promote Jewish “continuity,” discounted the contributions of the mostly volunteer corps of women educators who made them run. Meanwhile, the supplementary school remains the dominant model for Jewish education among non-Orthodox American Jews, despite recent research showing its precipitous decline.
I picked up “Jewish Sunday Schools” hoping to find out who gets the blame for ruining my Sunday mornings. I came away with a new appreciation for the women whose “important and influential work,” Yares writes, “extended far beyond the classrooms in which they worked.”
Yares is assistant professor of Religious Studies at Michigan State University, with a joint appointment in the MSU Program for Jewish Studies. Raised in Birmingham, England, she has degrees from Oxford University and a doctorate from Georgetown University.
Our conversation was edited for length and clarity.
Tell me how your book came to be about the 19th century as opposed to the common 20th-century story of suburbanization.
There’s a real gap in American Jewish history when it comes to the 19th century, chiefly because so many American Jews today trace their origins back to the generation who arrived between 1881 and 1924, the mass migration of Jews from from Eastern Europe. So there’s a sense that that’s when American Jewish history began. Of course, that’s not true at all.
The American Jewish community dates back to the 17th century and there was much innovation that laid the foundations for what would become institutionalized in the 20th century.
Sunday school gets a very bad rap among most historians of American Judaism. If they’ve treated it at all, they tend to be dismissive — you know, there was no substance, they just taught kids the 10 Commandments, it was run by these unprofessional volunteer female teachers, so it was feminized and feminine.
But there’s also a lot of celebration of Rebecca Gratz, who founded the first Sunday school for Jewish children.
That’s the first indication I had that there might be more of a story here. Rebecca Gratz is lionized as being such a visionary and being so inventive in developing this incredible volunteer model for Jewish education for an immigrant generation that was mostly from Western Europe. And yet, by the beginning of the 20th century, [Jewish historians] say it has no value. So what’s the story there?
Two other things led me on the path to thinking that there was more of a story in this 19th-century moment. I did my Ph.D in Washington, D.C. And as I was searching through the holdings of the Library of Congress, there were tons and tons of Jewish catechisms.
“Sunday school gets a very bad rap among most historians of American Judaism,” says Dr. Laura Yares, author of the new book, “Jewish Sunday Schools.” (Courtesy of the author)
A catechism is a kind of creed, right? It’s a statement of religious beliefs. “These are things we believe as Jews.”
So Jewish catechisms had that, but they were also philosophical meditations in many ways. Typically, the first question of the catechism was, what is religion? And then the second question is, what is Jewish religion?
And then I started reading them. They were question-and-answer summaries of the whole of Judaism: belief, practices, holidays, Bible, you name it, that the children were expected to memorize. This idea that you’ve got to cram these kids with knowledge went against this historiographic dismissal of this period as being very thin and that kids were not really learning anything. The idea that children had a lot to learn is something that Sunday school educators actually really wrestle with during this period.
What was the other thing that led you to pursue this subject?
When I was beginning to research my dissertation, I was working as a Hebrew school teacher in a large Reform Hebrew school in Washington, D.C. And I remember very distinctively the rabbi coming in and addressing the teachers at the start of the school year. He said, “I don’t care if a student comes through this Hebrew school and they don’t remember anything that they learned. But I care that at the end of the year they feel like the temple is a place that they want to be, that they feel like they have relationships there and they have an (he didn’t use this word) ‘affective’ [emotional] connection.”
And so I’m sitting there by day at the Library of Congress, reading these catechisms that are saying, “Cram their heads with knowledge.” What is the relationship between Jewish education as a place where one is supposed to acquire knowledge and a place where one is supposed to feel something and to develop affective relationships? The swing between those two poles was happening as far back as the 19th century.
You write that owing to gaps in the archives, it was really hard to get an idea of the classroom experience. But to the degree that there’s a typical classroom experience in the 1860s, 1870s and you’re the daughter or grandchild of probably German-speaking Jewish immigrants, maybe working or lower middle class, what would Sunday school be like? I’m guessing the teacher would be a woman. Are you reading the Bible in English or Hebrew?
You are probably going for an hour or two on a Sunday morning. It’s a big room, and your particular class would have a corner of the room. It’s quite chaotic. Most of the teachers were female volunteers. They were either young and unmarried, or older women whose children had grown. Except for the students who are preparing for confirmation — the grand kind of graduation ritual for Sunday schools. Those classes were typically taught by the rabbi, if there was a rabbi associated with the school.
There would be a lot of reading out loud to the students with students being expected to repeat back what they had heard or write it down so they had a copy for themselves. Often the day would begin with prayers said in English, and often the reading of the Torah portion, typically in English, although in many Sunday schools, we do have children reporting they learned bits of Hebrew by rote memorization. Or they memorized the first chapters of the book of Genesis, for example, but I’m not sure that they quite understood what they memorized. “Ein Keloheinu” is a song that often children tell us [in archival materials] that they had memorized in Hebrew. They probably would have learned at least Hebrew script, and a little bit of Hebrew decoding. But it is fair to say that if they were reading the Bible, they were reading it mostly in English, because you have to remember that most of the women who were volunteering to teach in these schools came of age in a generation where Hebrew education wasn’t extended to women.
What’s the goal of these Sunday schools?
The Sunday school movement arose because there was a whole generation of immigrant children who did not have access to Jewish education, because their parents didn’t have either the economic capital or the social capital to become part of the established Jewish community. They couldn’t afford a seat in the synagogue, they couldn’t afford to send their children to congregational all-day or every-afternoon schools [which were among the few options for Jewish education when Gratz opened the Philadelphia Sunday school]. Sunday schools are really a very innovative solution to a problem of a lack of resources.
You also write that the founders of these supplementary schools want to defend children against “predatory evangelists.”
That was how Rebecca Gratz described her goal when she created the first Sunday school. She was very, very worried about the Jewish kids who were not receiving any kind of Hebrew school education. She talks about Protestant missionaries and teachers who would go out onto the street ringing the bell for Sunday school and offering various kinds of trinkets, and Jewish kids would get kind of swept into their Sunday schools. There was a very concrete need to give Jewish children somewhere else to go.
So Gratz and the people who created the first Hebrew Sunday school in Philadelphia looked at what the Protestants were doing and they saw that Protestant Sunday schools were providing very accessible places where kids could go and get a basic primer in their religious tradition.
The approach was to teach Judaism as a religion, as opposed to Judaism as a people or culture, to demonstrate that being Jewish was as compatible as Protestantism with being wholly American.
That is certainly part of it. It’s a demonstration that Judaism is compatible with American public life. But I think there’s actually a much bigger claim that the Sunday schools are making. The claim is not only that Judaism is as good as Protestantism, but that Judaism does religion better than Protestantism. These rabbis who were writing catechisms and teaching confirmation classes were saying that Judaism does liberal religion better than liberal Protestants, liberal Catholics and other kinds of liberal denominations. You see the same sentiment in the Pittsburgh Platform as well, which is the foundational platform of the Reform movement written in the 1880s. Sunday schools take that idea and bring it down to a grassroots level.
There are many, many fewer Jews in America in much of the 19th century, before the waves of Eastern European immigrants arrived beginning in the 1880s They didn’t really have strength in numbers, or the kind of self-confidence to have a system of day schools, yeshivas or heders, the elementary schools for all-day or every day Jewish instruction.
And this is also a community that has grown up at the same time as the birth of public education in America, independent of churches. That really emerged beginning on the East Coast in the 1840s.This generation of Americans really believes in the power of public education to craft an American public. It’s a project that 19th-century American Jews believe in and want to sustain. So Sunday schools don’t just become the preferred Jewish model because of lack of resources, but because American Jews really believe in the idea of public education.
What happens at the beginning of the 20th century, with the arrival of Eastern Europeans with different models for Jewish education?
A new generation tries to reform Jewish education, led by a young educator from Palestine named Samson Benderly, who leads the new New York Bureau of Jewish Education. He tries to change American Jewish education to make it more professionalized, but to bring more traditionally inclined Jews on board he has to convince them that he doesn’t want to make more Sunday schools, because Sunday schools by the end of the 20th century had become very much associated with the Reform movement in a way that they weren’t when they were founded and for much of the 19th century.
A painting of Philadelphia philanthropist and Jewish education activist Rebecca Gratz by Thomas Sully. (The Rosenbach of the Free Library of Philadelphia)
Benderly is surveying the scene of recent immigrants living in New York City [tenements] and other kinds of downtown environments, and his proposal is to create these community institutions for these dense communities, where children can be taught Hebrew in Hebrew. His disciples also created Jewish camps as a way to get children out of the inner cities and develop the muscular Zionist ideal of healthy bodies and a robust sense of Jewish collectivity.
You write that Benderly’s vision is a sort of masculine response to the “feminizing” perception of the Sunday schools.
These women teachers are recognizing that they’re being criticized for the kind of thinness of the Jewish education that they’re teaching in comparison to other models, but in periodicals like The American Jewess women are writing back and saying, “But you didn’t teach us Hebrew! I didn’t get that opportunity as a woman, so what do you expect?” It’s really important to note that the women did the best that they could in the time that they had available, and that they were the product of opportunities that were denied to them.
What lessons did you learn about Sunday school and Hebrew school education in the 20th century that relate to your research into the 19th century?
The move that is so decisive for shaping American Jewish education is suburbanization. Rather than having a large immigrant generation who are living in these tight ethnic enclaves, you have American Jewish children who are predominantly growing up in the suburbs, and socializing with children from all sorts of different backgrounds who are attending public schools. The place that you go to get your Jewish education is the synagogue supplemental school, which becomes the dominant model for American Jewish education up until today. Benderly might reflect that it looks a lot more like the Sunday school movement of the 19th century than his vision.
Today’s model is really a religious model. And by that I mean that students go to Hebrew school primarily to kind of check a religious box, to learn about the thing that makes them distinctive religiously, and to achieve a religious coming-of-age marker, which is the bar, bat or b mitzvah. Certainly the curriculum today is more diverse, embracing more aspects of traditional Judaism then you would have seen in a 19th-century Sunday school: more Hebrew, more of a sense of Jewish peoplehood, ethnic identity and Zionism of course. But the question that American Jews are increasingly asking themselves is, is this a model that they still want? So you may have seen that the Jewish Education Project published a report recently on supplemental schools, which saw that enrollment has really, really declined.
Sunday schools are based on a vision of Judaism as a set of a religious commitments that American Jews actualize through belonging to a synagogue and sending their children to a synagogue or a religious school, where they will learn primarily a set of religious skills: the ability to read from the Torah, the ability to decode Hebrew, the ability to navigate the siddur.
Is that still the vision that most American Jews have for what Judaism means to them? I think increasingly the answer seems to be no.
How else did experience in a Hebrew school classroom influence you? Did you access anything else when you were writing the book?
I think about the number of college kids and graduate students and empty nesters who are either volunteering or earning minimum wage, working at Hebrew schools, all over the country. That’s the labor force of American Judaism. These people also bring so much to the table. There are a lot of skills, dispositions and knowledge that don’t tend to get taken very seriously because this is a workforce that just gets kind of put into the category of “oh, they’re part time.” That made me look really closely in the historical archives to see if I could find anything out about the women who are volunteering to teach in Sunday schools. And what I found out was that [many] were public school teachers. And they brought a lot to the table. It was women in fact who were really pushing to make the Sunday school curriculum more experiential and to move away from rote memorization.
As a historian formed by feminist methods, I find it really important to recognize that these women were giving over what they had, as opposed to critiquing them for not teaching in a more traditional way. I think we need to pay attention when women are being scapegoated for problems that are described as problems of Jewish continuity. It blinds us to the role that women’s volunteerism has played in American Jewish life. This whole Sunday school movement was possible only because these women volunteered their time and largely were not paid.
—
The post A new book made me appreciate Jewish Sunday schools — and the volunteer women who have powered them 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.
