Uncategorized
Netanyahu’s new government could lose a critical constituency: American conservatives
WASHINGTON (JTA) — The op-ed was typical of the Wall Street Journal’s conservative editorial page, extolling the virtues of moderation in all things.
The difference was that the author of the piece published Wednesday, Bezalel Smotrich, has a reputation for extremism, and the political landscape he was imagining is in Israel, not America.
Experts who track the U.S.-Israel relationship say the op-ed had a clear purpose: to quell the fears of American conservatives whom Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has long cultivated as allies and who may be rattled by his new extremist partners in governing Israel.
Those partners include Smotrich, the Religious Zionist bloc leader and self-described “proud homophobe” whom Israeli intelligence officials have accused of planning terrorist attacks — and who was sworn in as finance minister in Netanyahu’s new government Thursday. They also include Itamar Ben-Gvir, who has been convicted of incitement for his past support of Jewish terrorists, who will oversee Israel’s police.
The presence of Smotrich, Ben-Gvir and their parties in Netanyahu’s governing coalition has alarmed American liberals, including some in the Biden administration. But insiders say conservatives are feeling spooked, too.
“The conservative right was with [Netanyahu] and now he seems to be riding the tiger of the radical right,” said David Makovsky, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy who just returned from a tour of Israel where he met with senior officials of both the outgoing and incoming governments. “And I think that is bound to alienate the very people who counted on him being risk-averse and to focus on the economy.”
In his op-ed published on Tuesday, two days before the new Israeli government was sworn in, Smotrich sought to persuade Americans that the new government is not the hotbed of ultranationalist and religious extremism it has been made out to be in the American press.
“The U.S. media has vilified me and the traditionalist bloc to which I belong since our success in Israel’s November elections,” he wrote. “They say I am a right-wing extremist and that our bloc will usher in a ‘halachic state’ in which Jewish law governs. In reality, we seek to strengthen every citizen’s freedoms and the country’s democratic institutions, bringing Israel more closely in line with the liberal American model.”
The op-ed is at odds with the stated aims of the coalition agreements; whereas Smotrich says there will be no legal changes to disputed areas in the West Bank, the agreements include a pledge to annex areas at an unspecified time, and to legalize outposts deemed illegal even under Israeli law. He says changes to religious practice will not involve coercion, but the agreement allows businesses to decline service “because of a religious belief,” which a member of his party has anticipated could extend to declining service to LGBTQ people.
Netanyahu has alienated the American left with his relentless attacks on its preference for a two-state outcome to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which he perceives as dangerous and naive. (He also differs from them on how to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.) He has instead cultivated a base on the right through close ties with the Republican Party and among evangelicals, made possible in part because he has long espoused the values traditional conservatives hold dear, including free markets and a united robust Western stance against extremism and terrorism.
But his alliance with Smotrich and others perceived as theocratic extremists may be a bridge too far even for Netanyahu’s conservative friends, who champion democratic values overseas, said Dov Zakheim, a veteran defense official in multiple Republican administrations.
“Traditional conservatives are much closer to the Bushes, and Jim Baker and those sorts of folks,” he said, referring to the two former presidents and the secretary of state under the late George H. W. Bush.
Jonathan Schanzer, a vice president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said the op-ed was likely written at Netanyahu’s behest with those conservatives in mind.
“The Wall Street Journal piece was designed to appeal to traditional conservatives,” he said. “It was designed to send a message to the American public writ large that the way in which Smotrich and perhaps [Itamar] Ben Gvir have been described is based on past utterances and not necessarily their forward-looking policies.”
The immediate predicate for the op-ed, insiders say, was likely a New York Times editorial on Dec. 17 that called the incoming government “a significant threat to the future of Israel” because of the extremist positions Smotrich and other partners have embraced, including the annexation of the West Bank, restrictions on non-Orthodox and non-Jewish citizens, diminishing the independence of the courts, reforming the Law of Return that would render ineligible huge chunks of Diaspora Jewry, and anti-LGBTQ measures.
Smotrich in his op-ed casts the changes not as radical departures from democratic norms but as tweaks that would align Israel more with U.S. values. He said he would pursue a “broad free-market policy” as finance minister. He likened religious reforms to the Supreme Court decision that allowed Christian service providers to decline work from LGBTQ couples.
“For example, arranging for a minuscule number of sex-separated beaches, as we propose, scarcely limits the choices of the majority of Israelis who prefer mixed beaches,” Smotrich wrote. “It simply offers an option to others.”
In the West Bank, Smotrich said, his finance ministry would promote the building of infrastructure and employment which would benefit Israeli Jewish settlers and Palestinians alike. “This doesn’t entail changing the political or legal status of the area.”
Such salves contradict the stated aims of the new government’s coalition agreement, Anshel Pfeffer, a Netanyahu biographer and analyst for Haaretz said in a Twitter thread picking apart Smotrich’s op-ed.
“Smotrich says his policy doesn’t mean changing the political or legal status of the occupied territories while annexation actually appears in the coalition agreement and his plans certainly change the legal status of the settlements,” Pfeffer said.
Danielle Pletka, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, said foreign media alarm at the composition of the incoming government was premature.
“I suspect that the vast mass of people will maintain the support that they have for Israel because it hasn’t got anything to do with the passing of one government to another and has everything to do with the principle that Israel is a pro-American democracy in a region that’s pretty important,” she said.
That said, Pletka said, the changes in policy embraced by Smotrich and his cohort could alienate Americans should they become policy.
“I think a lot of things can change if the rhetoric from Netanyahu’s government becomes policy, but right now, it’s rhetoric,” she said. “What you tend to see in normal governments is that they need to make a series of compromises between rhetoric that plays to their base and governance.”
Pletka said Netanyahuu’s stated ambition to expand the 2020 Abraham Accords to peace with Saudi Arabia would likely inhibit plans by Smotrich to annex the West Bank. In the summer of 2020, the last time Netanyahu planned annexation, the United Arab Emirates, one of the four Arab Parties to the Abraham Accords, threatened to pull out unless Netanyahu pulled back — which he did.
“It’s not just the relationship with the United States,” she said. “This might alienate their new friends in the Gulf, which, at the end of the day, may actually have more serious consequences.”
Netanyahu has repeatedly sought to relay the impression that he will keep his coalition partners on a short leash.
“They’re joining me, I’m not joining them,” he said earlier this month. “I’ll have two hands firmly on the steering wheel. I won’t let anybody do anything to LGBT [people] or to deny our Arab citizens their rights or anything like that.”
Zakheim said that Netanyahu, who is Israel’s longest-serving prime minister, from 1996 to 1999 and then from 2009 to 2021, has proven chops at steering rangy coalitions — but there are two key differences now.
Netanyahu wants his coalition partners to pass a law that would effectively end his trial for criminal fraud, and so they exercise unprecedented leverage over him. Additionally, Netanyahu in the past has faced the greatest pressure from haredi Orthodox parties, who are susceptible to suasion by funding their impoverished sector. That’s not true of his new ideologically driven partners.
“If you look at his past governments, he has really never been forced into real policy decisions by those to the right of him,” Zekheim said. “Now he’s got a problem because these 15 or so seats of those to his right are interested in policy, not just in money.”
Makovsky said Netanyahu appears to be leaving behind a conservatism that was sympathetic to the outlook of its American counterpart.
“His success has been that he’s a stabilizer. He’s risk-averse. He’s focused on the prosperity of the country, with high-tech success. He’s the one to be seen as the tenacious guardian against Iranian nuclear influence,” he said. “And those are things people could relate to. Now, it just seems like he’s just throwing the playbook out the window.”
—
The post Netanyahu’s new government could lose a critical constituency: American conservatives appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Why Israel’s soccer team competes in Europe rather than Asia
(JTA) — TEL AVIV — More than five decades after Israel’s only World Cup appearance, the Israel Football Association says it has no intention of trying to leave Europe for the Asian regional qualifying system that once took the country to the tournament, before Arab-led boycotts helped force it out.
The launch this month of the tournament hosted by the United States has renewed attention to Israel’s absence from the World Cup. Despite a thriving local soccer scene and success in competition abroad, the only time the country appeared in the tournament was in Mexico in 1970.
That’s because Israel seeks to qualify through the Union of European Football Associations, whose ranks are so strong that even a solid campaign can become a long shot for the World Cup. Even titans like four-time World Cup winner Italy failed to qualify this year.
Israel is the only non-European country trying to reach the tournament through UEFA, while most of its neighbors seek places through the Asian Football Confederation. Israel was ousted from the Asian soccer body in 1974. It bounced around the qualifying zones for a few years — it played in the Oceania qualifiers ahead of the 1986 and 1990 World Cups — before settling in the European grouping in 1991.
Shlomi Barzel, head of communications for the Israel Football Association, said a return to Asia is not on the table, both because Israel does not want to leave European soccer, where it has built a standing, and because he does not believe the Asian confederation would accept it back.
The only upside to such a move, he joked, would be if Israel’s opponents boycotted matches against it: “Israel would automatically qualify.”
A boycott of Israel did affect the team’s path to the 1970 World Cup. North Korea was ejected from the Asian qualifying tournament after refusing to play in Israel. As a result, Israel advanced to the final round after winning only two games against New Zealand. In the finals, Israel faced an Australian team already exhausted after fending off South Korea, Japan and Rhodesia (itself in the Asian tournament after being banned in Africa over its white governing regime).
In the tournament in Mexico, Israel’s all-amateur team defied expectations, losing 0-2 to Uruguay but notching draws against Sweden and Italy before being eliminated.
Four years later, Israel was effectively ejected from the Asian Football Confederation following a resolution introduced by Kuwait that passed 17 to 13, with six abstentions. The vote came a day before a high-profile Israel-Iran game in Tehran that Iran won 1-0 on an Israeli own goal.
Today, Barzel rejects the premise that rejoining the AFC would guarantee Israel a place in the World Cup going forward.
“It would be a little patronizing and arrogant for me to say that,” he said, adding that he was not sure Israel would beat teams such as Jordan or Qatar.
Barzel also cited Israel’s place inside UEFA’s institutions as a benefit for sticking with the current arrangement. Current IFA chairman Moshe “Shino” Zuaretz was elected to UEFA’s Executive Committee in April 2025, despite the war in Gaza and growing calls to sanction Israeli soccer, while former IFA chairman Avi Luzon previously served in a senior role on the same body.
Institutional backing has extended beyond Europe, Barzel said, pointing to the 2022 World Cup in Qatar, where Israeli fans were allowed to attend despite the absence of diplomatic ties. He also cited the global soccer body FIFA’s decision to move the 2023 under-20s World Cup from Indonesia to Argentina after Indonesia objected to hosting Israel’s team. Israel went on to finish third.
Still, Israel’s formal place in international soccer has done little to shield its teams and supporters from hostility. Maccabi Tel Aviv fans were attacked in Amsterdam after a match against Ajax in November 2024, and the club’s supporters were later barred from attending an Aston Villa match in a decision that became a political and policing scandal in Britain.
Despite its absence from the World Cup, Israel has remained a political flashpoint around the event, which U.S. President Donald Trump vowed to make “an unprecedented success.” Speculation that Trump’s hopes for a World Cup untainted by war spurred his push for a ceasefire with Iran prompted a denial from the top White House official dealing with the World Cup.
That didn’t keep the conflict from seeping into the events.
In Boston on June 19, kilt-clad Scotland fans waiting in blocks-long lines to board shuttles to the stadium where their team would face Morocco accepted Palestinian flags from activists lining the route.
Hours before Canada’s opening match on June 12, activists draped a “Kick Israel out of FIFA” banner over a World Cup logo near one of Toronto’s busiest highways.
Days later, a viral video from Iran’s match against New Zealand in Los Angeles showed security guards confiscating an Israeli flag from a fan — who was told they were acting on orders from their superiors — while other spectators behind him held Palestinian flags.
Trump’s special envoy for global partnerships, Paolo Zampolli, told Israel’s Kan public broadcaster he was “very disturbed” by the incident in Los Angeles, adding that there was “no place for antisemitism or double standards in sports.” Zampolli, who had previously urged FIFA to replace Iran with Italy at the World Cup, called on the soccer body to treat the episode seriously.
Barzel drew a distinction between the flag incident, which he said was likely a poor decision by stadium staff, and any official FIFA policy against Israel, noting that Israel’s flag is displayed alongside those of other member associations at official FIFA and UEFA events. FIFA generally discourages flags of teams not playing in a given match, he said, and added that Israeli teams have grown used to seeing Palestinian flags in soccer stadiums.
“Personally, I don’t get worked up by flags — they don’t scare me,” he said.
Yoav Borowitz, head of sports at Kan, said FIFA appeared wary of flags being used as protest symbols, pointing to the Iranian lion-and-sun flag, the country’s flag before the 1979 revolution installed the current theocratic regime, which some fans waved at the same match. FIFA’s failure to clarify whether Israeli flags were allowed in stadiums in the days after the incident, he said, “shows where Israel stands at the moment.”
“There were official FIFA stewards there,” he said, “and if the fan was effectively forced to remove the flag, then I would have expected FIFA to have issued a response by now and said that Israeli flags are allowed into stadiums, just as Palestinian flags are allowed into stadiums, just as the flag of any country is allowed into stadiums.”
Any limits placed on Israel’s soccer association have been imposed solely on security grounds, Barzel said, though in October UEFA came close to holding an emergency vote on whether to suspend Israel over the war in Gaza.
At FIFA’s congress in Vancouver in April, when Palestinian Football Association president Jibril Rajoub refused to shake hands with Israel FA Vice President Basim Sheikh Suliman despite repeated appeals from FIFA President Gianni Infantino, who called on the sides to “give hope to the children.”
Despite such gestures, Israel continues to compete as usual — almost. It has been unable to host matches at home for close to three years because of war and has had to play its home World Cup qualifiers in neutral third countries. It is hosting several contests this fall in Moldova, which last year gained an Israeli embassy, and direct El Al routes, for the first time. (Russia, by contrast, has had its national teams and clubs suspended from FIFA and UEFA competitions since its invasion of Ukraine.)
Despite the controversies, FIFA has kept pressing ahead with its vision of soccer as “a force for unity, peace and hope,” including reported discussions about opening a new under-15’s tournament in the United States in September with a symbolic match between Israeli and Palestinian youth teams.
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post Why Israel’s soccer team competes in Europe rather than Asia appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
A klezmer virtuoso, Joseph Moskowitz was a cymbalist of Jewish progress in America
The restaurant occupies a long narrow basement on the Lower East Side. It is packed with a hundred Jews who fill the air with a fog of blue tobacco smoke as steak and lamb grills over charcoal. Everyone, it seems, has a glass of red Romanian wine, including the cymbalom player who is banging out a sad peasant ballad. The whole room sings along.
The scene is from the early 1900’s in Jews Without Money, Michael Gold’s 1930 novel about the poor of the Jewish Lower East Side. The mustachioed man at the cymbalom is not a fictional character, though. He is Joseph Moskowitz, a Romanian-born Jew who ran the restaurant with his wife.
One of the first klezmer virtuosos in America, Moskowitz had a hand in several of the city’s restaurants, including a wildly successful Second Avenue establishment frequented by underworld figures, politicians and showbiz royalty. The Kardashians would envy his shrewdness in garnering publicity for his multifaceted career.
In April 1908, just four months after Moskowitz came to Amerike, he landed on to the front-page of The New York Times in a review headlined “CHAMPION CYMBALIST IS PLAYING HERE NOW.” The story noted his strange instrument, a hammered dulcimer popular in Eastern Europe, looked like “a baby grand piano with the top off.” The newspaper reported that Moskowitz’s performance was greeted with cries of “Bravo!”
Nixon was here
Moskowitz’s career as a musician met with great success but his life as a restaurateur had its ups and downs. He ran a number of eateries in New York, including one in the Bronx and another in what is now referred to as the East Village with three waiters as partners. Then, after a performance in Akron, Ohio, he ran a restaurant there called The Romany.

The Moskowitz family lived above the joint. Its clientele included members of the Firestone and Goodrich families but the patronage of the rubber barons was not enough to sustain the restaurant, so Moskowitz moved to Washington, D.C. There, he performed at Michel’s, a restaurant started by a violinist he played with. Legend has it that among the regulars at Michel’s was congressman Richard Nixon who would bring in a brown paper bag concealing a fermented beverage.
“I would like to point out that one of Nixon’s first foreign trips as president was actually to Romania, where he was photographed dancing the hora at the Museum of the Romanian Peasant with Nikolai Ceausescu, the Romanian dictator,” said Pete Rushefsky, a widely esteemed cymbalist who is also executive director of the Center for Traditional Music and Dance in New York.
The triumphs and travails of Moskowitz’s life are recounted in his unpublished and untitled memoir, which is now part of the Joseph Moskowitz Archive, acquired earlier this year by the Music Division at the Library of Congress. The archive was established after a box of artifacts was discovered in the home of one of Moskowitz’s descendants in Cleveland.
An affair to remember
In the early 1900’s there were dozens of Romanian Jewish restaurants on the Lower East Side, which was home to so many Romanian Jews it was known as Little Romania. The neighborhood was also distinguished by a large number of dance halls and libraries.

The Moskowitz memoir, which was written in Romanian, makes clear that his restaurants did not always attract the cream of the crop. One became the headquarters for some Russians gangsters, most of them pickpockets.
At Lupowitz & Moskowitz, which moved from its original location to Second Avenue and 2nd Street, dinners started at 85 cents. In Moskowitz’s telling, business was going great until his partner Sam Lupowitz, stole money with the assistance of Moskowitz’s wife Rebecca with whom he was having an affair.
According to Moskowitz, the affair went on for nine years. It all started, he writes, when Lupowitz took Mrs. Moskowitz to a party and got her “totally drunk,” after which they proceeded to the kitchen to burn off some calories. Mr. Moskowitz put an end to the affair when he came home one night and caught his partner leaving Mrs. Moskowitz’s bedroom.
In the old country, Moskowitz himself had not been exactly celibate. He recounts an affair with a Romanian widow he describes as a grifter. For nine months, he wrote, they made love every day. This feat was apparently an exhausting endeavor because Moskowitz decided to depart abruptly, leaving a letter informing the widow that he could no longer “carry on in this manner.” The widow had other ideas and asked a local magistrate to arrest Moskowitz who managed to avoid incarceration by hiding.
A heavy lift
Joseph Moskowitz’s real superpower was performing on the cymbalom, which he started playing at the age of eight, taught by his father on a small folk version of the instrument. One of his first gigs was playing on the ferries that travelled the Danube. Eventually he learned how to play the large concert version of the cymbalom, which was developed in the late 19th Century and became a major orchestral instrument in Eastern Europe.
“He was an absolute virtuoso,” said Rushefsky. “His technical competence on the instrument was just incredible.”

Moskowitz was recorded playing a wide range of music on the instrument, including ragtime, classical, as well as Turkish, Russian and Greek music.
His cymbalom weighed 150 pounds and was not an easy instrument to schlep around, which made performing at restaurants appealing, since he could just leave the instrument there, though he did perform from time to time in concert venues, including Town Hall.
Rushefsky told me he was impressed with Moskowitz’s savvy at drumming up publicity for both his performances and restaurants. Moskowitz deftly cultivated relationships with media figures and other bold-faced names of the day. His memoir notes that among the celebrities who came to hear him play were Theodore Dreiser, Chaim Weitzman and Jascha Heifetz.
“He had a meticulously curated scrapbook filled with articles about his restaurant and reviews of his performances. You can tell that was really important to him,” Rushefsky said.
In Around The World In New York, a book about the city’s ethnic neighborhoods published in 1924, the immigrant newspaperman Konrad Bercovici described Moskowitz’s restaurant as a place with “haunting melodies, tripping dances” and spicy food. “At Moskowitz’s on Houston Street the Rumanian Jews sing at the top of their voices the songs of the country they left,” Bercovici wrote.
A klezpirational figure
Many of the old scratchy 78 rpm vinyl disks that were vital to the first wave of the klezmer revival in the 1970’s and 80’s featured a clarinet-centric sound but the earliest recordings we have of klezmer, from circa 1908, the violin is the main instrument, often accompanied by cymbalom.
Moskowitz’s recordings are widely available on YouTube.
“His repertoire is performed by klezmer bands around the world,” Pete Rushefsky told me. “His recordings continue to be an inspiration for a small but dedicated group of musicians working to revitalize the cimbalom as an essential part of klezmer’s sound.”
The post A klezmer virtuoso, Joseph Moskowitz was a cymbalist of Jewish progress in America appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Primaries prove it: In New York, pro-Israel politics are now a liability
(JTA) — A little more than a year ago, thousands showed up for the annual Paul Feig z”l Tikkun Leil Shavuot at the Marlene Meyerson JCC Manhattan, an all-night bonanza of eclectic Jewish learning. The program featured dozens of rabbis, scholars, journalists and artists. Yet the unquestioned star of the night was Ritchie Torres, the congressman from the Bronx who has become a beloved figure in the pro-Israel community.
Hundreds packed the gym to hear from Torres, with many others turned away at the door. Eventually the discussion turned to the upcoming mayoral primary that was just weeks away. Many in the crowd were alarmed by the surging popularity of Zohran Mamdani, but still skeptical that a staunchly anti-Israel lawmaker could be elected in the city with the world’s largest Jewish community outside of Israel.
Instead of reassurance, Torres, who was backing former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo in the mayoral primary, issued a warning: If Mamdani pulled off his improbable upset, it would quickly become open season on pro-Israel Democrats like himself.
As it turned out, Torres didn’t have to worry. He won his primary race Tuesday night in a landslide, securing around 70% of the vote in New York’s 15th Congressional District against an anti-Israel challenger. But his prediction was still spot on: The primaries were a Mamdani wave, with all three of the mayor’s endorsed congressional candidates winning their primaries – and knocking off two solidly pro-Israel incumbents, Dan Goldman and Adriano Espaillat, in the process.
In November, Mamdani’s ascension to City Hall felt like a political earthquake, putting an exclamation point on the reality that being staunchly anti-Israel was no longer a road block to success in Democratic politics. Yet Tuesday’s results feel more seismic – this is the first time that incumbent congressmen have lost their seats in campaigns in which they were repeatedly attacked for being too supportive of Israel. Whatever other issues were at play in the individual races, the success of candidates with an outsized focus on criticizing the Jewish state and groups that support it – in particular, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee – sends the message that their approach is a winning strategy.
There are still plenty of districts where Democrats can win with pro-Israel positions and pro-Israel support, for example the congressional seat being vacated in Marylan by pro-Israel stalwart Steny Hoyer. Hoyer’s pick to succeed him, Adrian Boafo, won Tuesday in a crowded 24-candidate primary with major backing from AIPAC.
But suddenly, for a widening swath of the Democratic congressional caucus, backing Israel has gone from being the politically safe move to a potential career-ender.
Goldman, who won his first reelection primary with about 65% of the vote in 2024, ended up on the wrong side of a similar landslide this time around in his race against former City Comptroller Brad Lander. Espaillat, who has served in Congress for nearly a decade and is chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, lost to Darializa Avila Chevalier in New York’s 13th Congressional District, which includes Upper Manhattan and parts of the Bronx.
Following Mamdani’s lead, Lander and Avila Chevalier both sought to turn their opponent’s support for Israel into a defining moral failure and painted backing from AIPAC as the dictionary definition of being in the pocket of special interests.
Lander kicked off his campaign by making clear he wouldn’t be “doing AIPAC’s bidding” and made Goldman’s support from the pro-Israel lobby group a central issue throughout the campaign. Though Lander describes himself as a liberal Zionist, he repeatedly accused Israel of committing genocide in Gaza and promised to oppose U.S. weapons sales to Israel.
Just last year, Cuomo and then-Mayor Eric Adams thought Mamdani’s stance on the Jewish state was a major political liability, so they did all they could to play up his anti-Israel bona fides in their race against him. In a sign of how quickly the political winds have shifted in New York, Goldman this spring sought to minimize his differences with Lander on Israel, noting that they both received endorsements from J Street, the dovish group that advocates for more U.S. pressure on Israel to achieve a two-state solution. Goldman, in the final debate, even offered his own criticism of AIPAC, saying the pro-Israel group “has some real problems and is harmful in many ways.”
In contrast, Espaillat took aim at Avila Chevalier on Israel. “She went to celebrate the death of innocent people in Israel right after the attack,” Espaillat said during a recent televised debate, referencing her participation in an anti-Israel rally, which the Democratic Socialists of America had promoted, the day after Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attack.
Like Mamdani, Avila Chevalier’s early anti-Israel activism was a key aspect of her political biography: She was part of the Students for Justice in Palestine group during her years as an undergraduate at Columbia Univeristy and later helped organize the school’s pro-Palestinian encampment as an alumna in 2024. During the campaign, she criticized Espaillat for his response to the detainment of Columbia University encampment leader Mahmoud Khalil, whose arrest last year became a rallying point for pro-Palestinian activists.
What should really alarm the pro-Israel community, however, is that this progressive playbook contributed to victories in two very different races. In the case of Lander versus Goldman, you had two Jewish self-described Zionists running in a very Jewish district. Avila Chevalier, on the other hand, was a non-Jewish anti-Israel challenger taking on a non-Jewish incumbent with strong pro-Israel credentials in a district with relatively few Jews (at least by New York’s standards).
As Mamdani’s handpicked squad heads to Washington, the pressure on other congressional Democrats to speak out strongly against Israel and back measures such as end to U.S. arms sales will only intensify. That was clear from the election night victory speeches.
During Avila Chevalier’s speech, the crowd erupted into cheers of “Free Palestine.” She couched her victory as a rejection of funding from AIPAC, crypto and other corporate interests.
Lander promised in his victory speech to be “one of the Jewish members of Congress most willing to stand up loud for Palestinian human rights.”
“We cannot keep paying for Netanyahu’s wars with our tax dollars,” he added. “Democratic voters across the country are saying this loud and clear.”
It’s possible that Lander’s wrong and that Mamdani’s rise and coattails are an only-in-New York thing. But based on several other results this election cycle and polling in upcoming races, that hope increasingly feels like betting against the Knicks.
For the pro-Israel community, there’s at least one bright spot: At least for now, they still have Ritchie Torres.
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post Primaries prove it: In New York, pro-Israel politics are now a liability appeared first on The Forward.

