Connect with us

Uncategorized

Brad Lander joins call to end U.S. aid to Israel, in quest to replace Rep. Dan Goldman

Brad Lander, a Jewish Democrat running for Congress who has described himself as a liberal Zionist, has joined some progressive House members in calling for an end to U.S. aid to Israel.

Lander, the former New York City comptroller who ran for mayor last year, is challenging Rep. Dan Goldman, a two-term incumbent, in a Democratic primary in lower Manhattan and parts of Brooklyn.

He made the remarks at a meeting Thursday with the New York Editorial Board, a group of New York City journalists, including Forward editor-in-chief Alyssa Katz, who interview political candidates and civic leaders.

Asked whether he agrees with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) that the U.S. should end funding for Israel’s Iron Dome defense system, Lander responded:

“We need to follow the Leahy Law and condition all of our foreign policy aid on human rights and international law compliance,” Lander said. “At the moment, Israel is very far from complying with human rights and international law. So I would not vote for any more aid at this moment.”

He added: “But I hope it gets there.”

Both Lander and Ocasio-Cortez had previously drawn a distinction: they both opposed offensive arms aid to Israel but supported aid to help Israel’s defensive Iron Dome system, high-tech missile interception that protects lives, property and infrastructure against assaults from Iran and allied groups, including Hamas and Hezbollah.

But last week, Ocasio-Cortez announced that she opposed Iron Dome funding and all U.S. aid to Israel, saying “The Israeli government is well able to fund the Iron Dome system.” Her move increased pressure on other members of the Democratic Party’s progressive wing to follow suit.

This is not the first time Lander, who has been endorsed by Mayor Zohran Mamdani, has called for curbs on aid to Israel. In February, he announced that if elected he intends to cosponsor the Block the Bombs Act, which would restrict certain offensive arms sales to Israel and currently has 60 sponsors.

Lander’s position opposing U.S. aid to Israel marks a shift as he seeks to rally progressive voters. During last year’s mayoral race, Lander said he supports continued U.S. funding for Iron Dome and other defensive systems.

In a statement to the Forward on Friday, Lander said “Iron Dome is critical to ensuring the safety of civilians in Israel. Israel should have access to purchase it with their own funds.”

However, he added — citing the Leahy Law, which requires withholding funding in cases of “gross violations of human rights” — the U.S. ”should not provide taxpayer-funded financial aid for it at this time.”

The statement concluded: “I genuinely hope that changes in the future, speedily and in our day, as part of a deal that protects the human rights and safety of all civilians in the region.”

The Lander-Goldman showdown

Growing opposition to U.S. military aid to Israel comes amid President Trump joining Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to launch a joint war on Iran and reflects a broader shift taking shape ahead of the midterm elections, as criticism of Israel grows and Democratic voters become more polarized over U.S. policy.

Aid to Israel has become a flashpoint in the high-stakes primary between two prominent Jewish candidates, with Lander attempting to knock out an incumbent from his own Democratic Party.

Lander’s challenge highlights deepening divisions within the party over Israel and U.S. aid. The 10th Congressional District, which includes Borough Park and Park Slope in Brooklyn as well as parts of lower Manhattan, voted heavily for New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, a democratic socialist and outspoken critic of Israel. Mamdani, who endorsed Lander, said he agreed with Ocasio-Cortez’s position opposing defensive aid to Israel.

Goldman, an heir to the Levi Strauss fortune and former Trump impeachment prosecutor who was elected in 2022,  is aligned with the mainstream positions of national Democrats on Israel: supportive of Israel’s security while finding a pathway for a two-state solution, sharply critical of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s right-wing government, and opposed to settlement expansion and settler violence.

A spokesperson for the Goldman campaign told the Forward that the incumbent “will always support defensive systems that keep civilians out of harm’s way,” adding that the Iron Dome provides that critical protection “to millions of civilians and saves hundreds of innocent lives every day.”

Goldman has, however, crept closer to the progressive wing in the heat of the election. In response to a questionnaire by the Brooklyn Young Democrats, Goldman said he believes that U.S military aid to Israel should “certainly be conditioned on human rights compliance.”

Goldman noted that he “cannot commit to a blanket ban on aid to Israel that is divorced from circumstance, especially in light of Iran’s stated aim of eradicating Israel, which motivates its terrorist proxies that surround Israel.”

In 2023, Goldman had said he opposed any conditions. “Broadly speaking, I am against conditioning aid to Israel. We have never done that,” he told Business Insider. “I think that the pathway toward having some of these conversations, which are important conversations, should be done on a diplomatic level, not in connection to the aid.”

Asked if he believes Israel has violated human rights and would therefore be subject to certain conditions, Maddy Rosen, a Goldman spokesperson, said he supported former President Joe Biden’s restrictions on offensive weapons that would be used to perpetuate violence against Palestinian civilians in the West Bank. “Dan continues to strongly oppose any U.S. aid for Israel’s illegal and immoral actions in the West Bank,” Rosen said.

Both candidates are allies with J Street, a progressive, pro-peace group that backs limits on

offensive weapons to Israel and demands Israel’s compliance with U.S. and international law. J Street has endorsed Goldman’s reelection and “primary approved” Lander. A recent poll commissioned by the organization found that 70% of American Jews support placing some conditions on military assistance, including 26% who favor halting aid altogether. AIPAC opposes any conditions on U.S. military aid to Israel.

Israel looms over midterms 

A few years ago, this level of support for even modest restrictions on arms sales to Israel would have been unthinkable. But last year, amid the Gaza war, a record 27 Senate Democrats — a majority of the caucus — supported a pair of resolutions introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Jewish Vermont Independent and longtime critic of U.S. aid to Israel, to block weapons transfers.

The vote, supported by some liberal Jewish organizations, signaled growing concern about the policies of the Israeli government and highlighted a willingness among Democrats to challenge the historically bipartisan consensus on unconditional support for Israel amid the war in Gaza.

Lander lambasted his opponent in his interview with the NY Editorial Board, accusing him of “utterly failing to meet the moment to see Palestinian lives as just as valuable as Israeli and Jewish lives,” which Lander called “catastrophic for Palestinian families” as well as “catastrophically bad for Israel and catastrophically bad for American foreign policy.”

The Goldman campaign pushed back agianst Lander’s attacks, calling it “deeply offensive” and patently false,” and accused Lander of running a “disgusting sewer campaign.”

The post Brad Lander joins call to end U.S. aid to Israel, in quest to replace Rep. Dan Goldman appeared first on The Forward.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Iran Hands Over New Proposal for Talks With US to End War

An Iranian flag lies amidst the rubble of a building of the Sharif University of Technology, which was damaged in a strike, amid the US-Israeli conflict with Iran, in Tehran, Iran, April 7, 2026. Photo: Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS

Tehran has submitted its latest proposal for negotiations with the United States, Iranian state media and a Pakistani official said on Friday, a move that could break a deadlock in efforts to end the Iran war.

The official, involved in Pakistani mediation over the war, said Pakistan had received the proposal late on Thursday and had forwarded it to the US.

Neither the official nor Iranian state news agency IRNA gave details, and the White House declined to comment, while saying negotiations continued. Global oil prices, which remain well above $100 a barrel, eased following news of the proposal.

The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has caused unprecedented disruption to energy markets, choking off 20% of the world’s oil and gas supplies and causing a record rally in oil prices.

The blockade of the vital sea channel has also increased concerns that there will be an economic downturn. The US Navy is blocking exports of Iranian crude oil, and on Friday the US Treasury warned shippers that they risked sanctions if they paid tolls to Iran to pass through the strait.

A ceasefire has been in place since April 8 but reports that US President Donald Trump was to be briefed on plans for new military strikes to compel Iran to negotiate had pushed global oil prices up to a four-year high at one point on Thursday.

Iran has activated air defenses and plans a wide response if attacked, having assessed that there will be a short, intensive US strike, possibly followed by an Israeli attack, two senior Iranian sources told Reuters on condition of anonymity.

‘TREACHEROUS AGGRESSION’

Washington has not said what its next steps are. Trump said on Tuesday he was unhappy with the previous proposal from Iran, and Pakistan has not set a date for new talks on ending a war that has killed thousands, mainly in Iran and Lebanon.

After US and Israeli airstrikes on Feb. 28, Iran fired at US bases, infrastructure, and US-linked companies in Gulf states, while the Iran-backed Lebanese terrorist group Hezbollah launched missiles at Israel, which responded with strikes on Lebanon.

Underlining the concerns of the Gulf states, UAE presidential adviser Anwar Gargash said the “collective international will and provisions of international law” were the primary guarantors of freedom of navigation through the strait.

“And, of course, no unilateral Iranian arrangements can be trusted or relied upon following its treacherous aggression against all its neighbors,” Gargash wrote.

Trump faces a formal US deadline on Friday to end the war or make the case to Congress for extending it under the 1973 War Powers Resolution.

The date looks set to pass without altering the course of the conflict after a senior administration official said that, for the purposes of the resolution, hostilities had terminated due to the April ceasefire between Tehran and Washington.

Financial and energy markets remained on edge because of concerns about the impasse over negotiations and worries that there could be a prolonged closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

IRAN SAYS NOT TO EXPECT QUICK RESULTS FROM TALKS 

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei cautioned on Thursday against expecting quick results from talks.

A senior official of Iran‘s Revolutionary Guards said any new US attack on Iran, even if limited, would usher in “long and painful strikes” on US regional positions, while Aerospace Force Commander Majid Mousavi was quoted by Iranian media as saying: “We’ve ​seen what happened to your regional bases; we will see the same thing happen to your warships.”

Trump repeated on Thursday that Iran would not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon, and said the price of gasoline – an important concern for his Republican Party before midterm elections in November – would “drop like a rock” as soon as the war ended.

Iran says its nuclear program is solely for civilian purposes.

The conflict has aggravated Iran‘s economic plight, which could head toward total collapse. However, the regime looks able to survive a standoff for now, despite the US blockade that has curtailed its energy exports.

Axios news site reported that one plan to be shared with Trump during a briefing by top US military leaders that was scheduled for Thursday involved using ground forces to take over part of the strait to reopen it to commercial shipping. Trump is also considering extending the US blockade or declaring a unilateral victory, officials have said.

Washington did not immediately announce any details of its plans.

In a sign that the US was also envisaging a scenario where hostilities cease, a State Department cable due to be delivered orally to partner nations by May 1 invited them to ‌join a new coalition, called the Maritime Freedom Construct, to enable ​ships to navigate the strait.

France, Britain, and others have held talks on contributing to such a coalition but said they would help to open the strait only when the conflict ends.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

When Jews Are Attacked, the Media Won’t Say ‘Jew’

Orthodox Jews stand by a police cordon, after a man was arrested following a stabbing incident in the Golders Green area, which is home to a large Jewish population, in London, Britain, April 29, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Hannah McKay

As soon as the words “attack in Golders Green” were uttered, everyone in Britain — Jewish or not — understood what that likely meant: another antisemitic attack.

Golders Green is one of the most recognizably Jewish areas in the UK, with around half its population identifying as Jewish. When violence erupts there, the context is not ambiguous.

Witness accounts quickly confirmed what seemed obvious. Two visibly Jewish men, in a well-known Jewish neighborhood, were stabbed. The suspect — a 45-year-old Somali national — was arrested at the scene.

Video footage showed police tasering the attacker and using force to disarm him as he refused to drop his weapon. Yet as news of the attack spread, something else became clear: major British media outlets were struggling to name who had been targeted.

The BBC reported that “two people” had been stabbed, attributing key details to a “Jewish security group,” as though the identity of the victims was uncertain or subjective. Sky News similarly opted for “two people,” stripping the attack of its clear antisemitic context in the headline. Later, Sky went further, running a headline emphasizing the attacker’s “history of mental health issues” — a framing that deflects from the antisemitic motive. The Independent, while calling it a terror attack in its headline, still avoided explicitly stating that Jews were targeted.

This is not a minor omission. It is a pattern that repeats with disturbing consistency. When Jews are the victims, the language shifts. Attacks are softened, anonymized, universalized. Victims become “people.” Targeted violence becomes generic crime. The specificity disappears.

But antisemitism is not generic. It is not abstract. And it is not universal.

Jews are being targeted as Jews.

The data makes that impossible to ignore. According to the Community Security Trust (CST), 3,700 antisemitic incidents were recorded in the UK in 2025 – the second-highest total on record and a 4 percent increase from 2024. That followed 4,298 incidents in 2023, itself a historic peak. The trajectory is clear: antisemitic violence is escalating.

And it is visible beyond statistics. In recent weeks alone, Hatzola ambulances were firebombed, synagogues in Finchley and Kenton were targeted in arson attacks, and a building that formerly hosted a Jewish charity in Hendon was targeted. Now, Jews have been stabbed in one of Britain’s most prominent Jewish communities.

Yet even as this reality intensifies, large parts of the media still struggle — or refuse — to name it plainly.

Why?

Part of the answer lies in a broader narrative environment. For months, British audiences have been exposed to coverage that portrays the Jewish state as uniquely malevolent, often with little context or balance. Mass protests openly invoking “intifada” have been downplayed or sanitized. Extremism, when directed at Jews, has too often been reframed as legitimate grievance.

Within that climate, the reluctance to say “Jew” is not accidental. It reflects a deeper discomfort with acknowledging Jews as a distinct and targeted group.

But language matters. When the media erases victims’ identities, it erases the nature of the crime. And when the nature of the crime is blurred, so too is the urgency to confront it.

This is how normalization happens – not through a single headline, but through repetition. Through omission. Through the quiet reshaping of reality.

If the trend continues, the consequences will not remain confined to headlines. Britain’s Jewish community is already questioning its future in a country where anti-Jewish violence is rising — and where even that violence is not always named for what it is.

Two men were not simply stabbed in Golders Green. Jews were attacked for being Jews. And the media should be able to say so.

The author is a contributor to HonestReporting, a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Say ‘Palestine Was Stolen’ and Win Cash From the Palestinian Authority

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas holds a leadership meeting in Ramallah, in the West Bank, April 23, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Mohammed Torokman

In a separate episode of official Palestinian Authority TV’s quiz program for the Muslim fasting month of Ramadan, participants received cash prizes from PA Chairman Abbas for denying Israel’s existence. Lebanese “refugees from Palestine” were also given money for lengthier answers to questions such as “how significant is Palestine for you?” and “why do we not consider any other homeland outside of Palestine as our homeland?”

This episode and the cash rewards were also sponsored by PA Chairman Abbas, the PLO Department of Refugee Affairs, and official PA TV. The following are excerpts of the questions put to residents of the Al-Badawi and Nahr Al-Bared refugee camps in Lebanon and their answers that all presented Israel as “Palestine.” The envelopes with the cash given to the participants bore the PA’s logo:

Woman 1“[I’m] from Al-Tira [near] Haifa, in Palestine (sic., Israel).”

Official PA TV host: “How significant is Palestine for you?”

Woman 1: “Palestine is in our hearts, and we educate our children and future generations that we have the right of return to Palestine.”

Host: “Why do our people in the diaspora keep the names of their villages and cities?

Woman 2: “We have not forgotten Palestine nor any of its regions… Allah willing we will return soon, each to his area. The right of return is legitimate…”

Host: “Why is it important that we pass on this message, the names of the cities, the names of the villages, and the story that happened in 1948… to the younger generation?” …

Woman 2: We educate our children on the principle that we have a land that was stolen and is occupied by the Zionist enemy.” …

Host: “Your answer was correct. You receive from us a [cash] prize, a presidential grant given to you on behalf of President Abbas…”

Host: “Why do we not consider any other homeland outside of Palestine as our homeland?” …

Woman 3: “No! This is our land. Palestine is our land and our homeland! Allah willing, Palestine will be liberated, and we will return to our lands. We are sitting here [in Lebanon] as guests… Generation after generation, we teach [our children] that we have a land and a homeland, which must be liberated.”

Host: “Your answer fills the heart with pride and joy, because as a Palestinian people, we have the right to return to our homeland. You have won a presidential grant…”

Host: “How important is the right of return for our people?”

Man 1: “Important. We hope to return already today! The right of return is a right! And there is no substitute for our homeland!” …

Host: “You have won a presidential grant…”

Host: “How important is it that we teach our children about the holy sites of Islam and Christianity that belong to us, about our Palestinian villages and cities from which our people were expelled?”

Man 2: “It is very important… We must teach the younger generation so that the memory will be preserved in their hearts, and of course so that we will return to Palestine, Allah willing!” …

Host: “You have won a presidential grant…”

Host: “Why have our Palestinian people insisted on keeping the names of their villages and towns from which they were expelled?”

Woman 4: “To preserve our homeland, Palestine… Because Palestine is our land, our homeland, our soil, and our right!” …

Host: “Allah willing, we will return to the homeland’s soil!”

Host: “You have won a presidential grant…”

Man 3: “[I’m from] the subdistrict of Safed in Palestine (sic., Israel).”

Host: “Why do our people not consider any country they live in as their homeland, instead of Palestine?”

Man 3: “We cannot leave our land, our cause, our soil, and our land! … We are the children of Palestine, and we do not want any other land to be a substitute for Palestine! … In Lebanon we are guests…”

Host: “You have won a presidential grant…”

Man 4: “[I’m from] the subdistrict of Safed in Palestine (sic., Israel).”

Host: “Why do our Palestinian people insist on keeping the names of their villages from which they were expelled in 1948?”

Man 4: “We want to return because everyone [wants to return] to his village, to his area, and to his land – Palestine… We cannot give up Palestine, it has no substitute.”

“How important is it that you pass on the name of the village… to your children… so that they too know… that they have a right?”

Man 4: “We always continue to tell [our children] there is nothing like our land and borders! … Allah willing, all the refugee camps in Lebanon will return to the land of Palestine, to their land…”

Host: “You have won a presidential grant…”

Host: “What does Palestine mean to you?”

Woman 5: This is my land.

Host: “You receive from us a prize, which is a presidential [cash] grant given on behalf of the honorable President Abbas, the Department of Refugee Affairs [in the PLO], and Palestinian Television. Here you go!”

[Official PA TV, Discourse of Memory, March 17, 2026]

Palestinian Media Watch has exposed how the PA along the same lines instruct Palestinian “refugees” that the countries they live in are only “waiting stations.”

This is yet another example of how the PA does everything it can to cement the ideology among Palestinians that there is no Israel and that “Palestine” will be liberated.

The author is the Founder and Director of Palestinian Media Watch, where a version of this article first appeared.

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News