Uncategorized
Hating Israel Isn’t New; How the CIA and State Department Undermined the Jewish State
“Teddy Roosevelt’s great-great-great grandson is an anti-Israel protester at Princeton,” blared a New York Post headline on May 4, 2024.
The Post reported that Quentin Colon Roosevelt, an 18-year-old freshman, and descendant of the 25th President, is an anti-Israel activist at the Ivy League university. But far from being hip and new, Quentin’s brand of anti-Zionism is old hat — he is merely continuing a long family tradition of anti-Israel activism.
There is an abundance of literature on Franklin D. Roosevelt’s views on Jews and Zionism, the belief in Jewish self-determination. Both FDR and his wife Eleanor had made antisemitic remarks. In a private conversation in 1938, then-President Roosevelt suggested that by dominating the economy in Poland, Jews were themselves fueling antisemitism. And in a 1941 Cabinet meeting, FDR remarked that there were too many Jewish Federal employees in Oregon. In his final days, FDR promised Saudi leader Abdul Aziz Ibn al Saud that he would oppose the creation of Jewish state in the Jewish people’s ancestral homeland.
FDR is the president who led the United States to victory against Adolf Hitler. He also employed Jews in high-ranking positions in his government. But he is also the president whose administration failed to save more Jews fleeing Nazism, and who refused to bomb the railway tracks leading to Auschwitz and other death camps where millions of Jews met a ghastly end. Accordingly, it makes sense that his beliefs regarding Jews have been the subject of books and belated study.
Less examined, however, is the Oyster Bay branch of the Roosevelt clan, and their beliefs regarding Zionism. In part, this is easily explained by the unique place that FDR holds in American history. He is the only president to serve four terms, and presided over both the Great Depression, World War II, and arguably the beginning of the Cold War. His branch of the family, the Hyde Park Roosevelts, were Democrats and remained active in public life for decades after his 1945 death.
At first glance, the Oyster Bay Roosevelts were more of a turn of the 19th century affair. They were Republicans, and their scion was Teddy Roosevelt, a war hero turned governor of New York state who, thanks to an assassin’s bullet, found himself as the nation’s leader in 1901.
The famously ebullient Roosevelt helped redefine the country’s idea of a president, and served as an inspiration for his cousin Franklin. But Teddy largely presided over an era of peace and tranquility, not war and upheaval.
Teddy was a philosemite. He was the first occupant of the Oval Office to appoint a Jewish American to the Cabinet. He championed the rights of Jews, both at home and abroad, and was harshly critical of the numerous pogroms that unfolded in czarist Russia.
As Seth Rogovoy has noted, Roosevelt’s “special relationship with Jews was forged during his time serving as police commissioner in New York City, a post he assumed in 1904.” When an antisemitic German preacher named Hermann Ahlwardt gave speeches in the city, Roosevelt assigned a contingent of Jewish police officers to guard the man.
Roosevelt was also a Zionist. In 1918, shortly after the Balfour Declaration, he wrote: “It seems to me that it is entirely proper to start a Zionist state around Jerusalem.” He told Lioubomir Michailovitch, the Serbian Minister to the United States, that “there can be no peace worth having … unless the Jews [are] given control of Palestine.” Six months later Roosevelt died in his sleep.
Not all his descendants would share his belief in Jewish self-determination, however.
Two of Teddy Roosevelt’s grandchildren, Kermit and Archie, served their country in the CIA during the early years of the Cold War. Both were keenly interested in Middle East affairs, and were fluent in Arabic. Both were well read and highly educated, authoring books and filing dispatches for newspapers like the Saturday Evening Post, among others.
They were also prominent anti-Zionists.
Kermit Roosevelt, known as “Kim,” played a key role in anti-Zionist efforts in the United States and abroad. He was not, by the standards of his time, an antisemite. But he was ardently opposed to the creation of Israel.
As Hugh Wilford observed in his 2013 book America’s Great Game: The CIA’s Secret Arabists and the Shaping of the Modern Middle East: “the anti-Zionism of the overt Cold War foreign policy establishment is well known” but “less widely appreciated is the opposition to Jewish statehood of the individuals responsible for setting up the United States’ covert apparatus in the Middle East.”
This began with the OSS, the CIA’s precursor. And it included men like Stephen Penrose, a former American University of Beirut instructor, and Kim Roosevelt’s boss during his wartime service in the OSS.
“Documents among Penrose’s personal papers reveal him engaged in a variety of anti-Zionist activities at the same time that he was commencing his official duties with the OSS,” Wilford notes.
Like many of his fellow Arabists, Penrose was the son of American missionaries who, failing to convert the native population to Christianity, sought to foster Arab nationalism instead. Penrose described himself as a “chief cook” who was “brewing” opposition to Zionism. He became one of Kim Roosevelt’s mentors.
In a January 1948 Middle East Journal article entitled, “Partition of Palestine: A Lesson in Pressure Politics,” Kim called the 1947 UN vote in favor of a Jewish state an “instructive and disturbing story.”
Roosevelt believed that the US media was unduly supportive of the creation of Israel, and claimed that almost all Americans “with diplomatic, educational, missionary, or business experience in the Middle East” opposed Zionism.
Kim’s pamphlet was reprinted by the Institute for Arab American Affairs, a New York-based group whose board he sat on. He also began working with the Arab League’s Washington, D.C., office and “turned elsewhere for allies in the anti-Zionist struggle, starting with the Protestant missionaries, educators, and aid workers.”
This nascent group soon received financial support from the American oil industry, which maintained close links to Kim’s OSS/CIA colleague, William Eddy.
As Wilford noted, the Arabian consortium ARAMCO “launched a public relations campaign intended to bring American opinion around to the Arab point of view.”
In addition to missionaries and big oil, Kim gained another important ally in the form of Elmer Berger, a rabbi from Flint, Michigan. Berger served as executive director of the American Council for Judaism, an anti-Zionist group that, among other things, opposed the creation of a Jewish army during World War II at the height of the Holocaust. Berger and Roosevelt became drinking buddies and close collaborators on their joint effort against the Jewish State.
Kim eventually became “organizing secretary” for a group called The Committee for Justice and Peace. The committee’s original chair, Virginia Gildersleeve, was both a longtime friend of the Roosevelts of Oyster Bay and the dean of New York City’s Barnard College, which today is part of Columbia.
Gildersleeve was “also a high-profile anti-Zionist” who “became involved with the Arab cause through her association with the Arabist philanthropist Charles Crane and the historian of Arab nationalism George Antonius.”
Crane, a wealthy and notorious antisemite, had lobbied against the creation of a Jewish state since the beginning of the 20th century, even advising then-President Woodrow Wilson against supporting the Balfour Declaration.
By 1950, the Committee had managed to recruit famed journalist Dorothy Thompson to their cause. Thompson was reportedly the basis for actress Katharine Hepburn’s character in the 1942 movie Woman of the Year. A convert to anti-Zionism, Thompson’s extensive network of reporters and celebrities proved crucial to Kim and Berger’s efforts to rally opposition to the Jewish State. In a 1951 letter to Barnard College’s Gildersleeve, Thompson wrote: “I am seriously concerned about the position of the Jews in the United States.” People, she claimed, “are beginning to ask themselves the question: who is really running America?”
Another ally emerged that year: the Central Intelligence Agency.
The CIA began funding the Committee, as well as its successor, the American Friends of the Middle East (AFME). Beginning in June 1950, Kim’s correspondence with Berger began making veiled references to the ACJ head taking on “official work” in Washington. This, Wilford believes, is a reference to working with the CIA. Indeed, the well-connected Kim and Archie Roosevelt had known top CIA officials like Allan Dulles since childhood.
With support from figures like Eddy, AFME also began encouraging Muslim-Christian alliances — ostensibly to counter Soviet influence, but also to attack the Jewish state. This led to some awkward alliances, including with Amin al-Husseini, the founding father of Palestinian nationalism and an infamous Nazi collaborator.
Husseini had ordered the murders of rival Palestinians, incited violence against Jews since the 1920s, and had led forces, equipped with Nazi-supplied arms, to destroy Israel at its rebirth in 1948. Now, along with the Secretary General of the Arab League, and Saudi King Ibn Saud, he was meeting with Eddy to discuss a “moral alliance” between Christians and Muslims to defeat communism. Kim himself knew Husseini, having interviewed him for the Saturday Evening Post after World War II.
AFME lobbied for the appointment of anti-Zionist diplomats and in favor of Eisenhower administration efforts to withhold aid from Israel. And both Berger and Thompson pushed for favorable coverage of the new Egyptian dictator, Gamal Nassar, who would wage war on the Jewish state for nearly two decades. Initially, they were successful, with TIME magazine writing that Nasser had the “lithe grace of a big, handsome, all-American quarterback.” Of course, there was nothing “all-American” about Nasser, who would become a Soviet stooge.
AFME officials like Garland Evans Hopkins would draw rebukes after claiming that Jews were bringing violence against themselves — a staple of antisemitism. Hopkins claimed that Zionists “could produce a wave of antisemitism in this country” if they continued acting against “America’s best interests in the Middle East.”
AFME itself would eventually lose influence, particularly after its boosting of figures like Nasser was revealed as foolhardy. Berger would go on to advise Senator J. William Fulbright (D-AR) in his efforts to get pro-Israel Americans to register as foreign agents.
In 1967, as Arab forces gathered to annihilate Israel, Berger blamed the Jewish State, accusing it of “aggression” and its supporters of “hysteria.” Top ACJ officials resigned in protest. That same year, Ramparts magazine exposed CIA support, financial and otherwise, of AFME.
Kim and Archie Roosevelt, however, would continue their careers as high-ranking CIA officers before eventually starting a consulting business and making use of their extensive Middle East contacts.
For some college protesters, attacking Israel — and American support for Israel — might seem new and trendy. Yet, both the CIA and big oil were precisely doing that, decades ago, forming alliances with anti-American dictators, antisemitic war criminals, the press, Protestant groups, academics, university administrators, and fringe Jewish groups claiming to represent “what’s best” for American Jewry.
As William Faulkner once wrote: “The past is never dead. It’s not even past.”
The writer is a Senior Research Analyst for CAMERA, the 65,000-member, Boston-based Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis
The post Hating Israel Isn’t New; How the CIA and State Department Undermined the Jewish State first appeared on Algemeiner.comhttps://www.algemeiner.com/.
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.
