Uncategorized
‘The gun is on the table’: Both sides of Israel’s debate say that a constitutional crisis is coming
(JTA) — In a country that is deeply divided, where attending anti-government protests has become a weekly ritual for many, at least one idea still unites the right and left: Israel appears to be hurtling toward a constitutional crisis.
The crisis — which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu termed a “governmental breakdown” during a recent visit to Germany — would flow from legislation Netanyahu is pushing that would overhaul Israel’s judiciary. The proposal — which critics say threatens Israel’s democratic character — would increase the coalition’s control over the appointment of Supreme Court judges, and would enable Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, to override court decisions with a simple majority.
A constitutional crisis occurs when a country faces an unsolvable dispute between competing branches of government. Countries have recovered from constitutional crises in the past — the United States has had several over the centuries, including multiple ones related to the leadup to the Civil War and its aftermath — but the process can be difficult, and mistrust long-lasting.
In Israel’s case, what happens if the Knesset passes the judicial legislation, the Supreme Court strikes it down, and the Knesset doesn’t abide by that decision? Does the court or Knesset hold final authority?
However that question is answered, just getting to that point would represent a dramatic breakdown in a 75-year-old democracy. “The very idea that the government might not comply, might ignore the Supreme Court’s decision, would be an unprecedented crisis,” said Michal Saliternik, a law professor at Netanya Academic College.
In that dangerous moment, some Israelis see opportunity. In a perhaps ironic twist, Israel is on the precipice of a constitutional crisis but doesn’t actually have a constitution. It’s a risky bet, but a battle between the court and the coalition, said international law scholar Tamar Megiddo, might just force Israel into the long and arduous process of writing a governing document and figuring out how to balance the country’s competing authorities.
“The entire constitutional system here is held together by duct tape,” said Megiddo, who teaches at the College of Law and Business outside Tel Aviv. “It’s ridiculous. We have no protection of our constitutional regime, no protection of our separation of powers, no protection of checks and balances and no protection of human rights. The only reason this functioned for the past 75 years is because there was good faith.”
She added, “I think a lot of people view the current constitutional moment, or the realistically likely constitutional crisis, as also an opportunity for fixing everything that’s broken in the system.”
When asked how a clash between the government and courts could come to a head, those scholars and others all individually sketched out versions of the same scenario: The government passes a law giving itself control over judicial appointments, the court strikes down the law — and the government appoints new judges anyway. When those judges arrive for their first day of work, should the security guards let them in? Who should the guards obey — the government that appointed the judges, or the courts that declared their appointment illegal?
While that question is being debated, the courts may not be able to hear cases at all.
“At the end of the day, the state needs to function,” Saliternik said. “The courts have work to do. If the judges can’t enter their chambers, it will definitely impact everyone. It’ll be like a third world country in which institutions don’t function.”
The law on judicial appointments may be passed next week, and for rank-and-file Israelis, both Saliternik and Megiddo said, this question would hardly be theoretical. If Israel’s system of government descends into crisis, it could lead to a downgrade in the country’s credit rating and an economic downturn that ordinary citizens feel in their pockets. And given how invested Israelis have become in the face of the judicial reform — protesting in the streets by the hundreds of thousands — it’s unlikely they’ll ignore what ensues if and when it passes. Israeli President Isaac Herzog, who has a reputation for congeniality, gave a pained speech last week warning of the potential for civil war.
“If the court issues a ruling and the government does not comply, then the Israeli public will say, ‘This is the ultimate proof that this is not a democracy anymore,’” Saliternik said. “I say this with trepidation, but if there’s an open battle between the Supreme Court and the Knesset, it could result in street violence.”
Megiddo said that even the possibility of such a crisis has normalized tactics that were once on the fringe, such as refusal to perform military service, a duty seen as sacrosanct across much of Jewish Israeli society. Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant reportedly warned that the possibility of mass refusal to serve could cause him to leave his post. On Tuesday, a group of military reservists said they plan to recruit tens of thousands more who will pledge to shirk reserve duty if the legislation goes through.
“People who refuse service were considered, in the Israeli public, to be a very extreme minority, and now it’s mainstream to say that people won’t serve the military for a dictatorship,” Megiddo said. “It’s unbelievable how mainstream saying that at the moment is, and that has long-term impact.”
Both supporters and opponents of the legislation in the Knesset are treating a constitutional crisis as a real possibility. The only thing they disagree about is who will be to blame — and both sides appear to be raising the stakes, vowing either to disobey government decisions, or disregard the court.
“The security situation is troubling,” said former Defense Minister Benny Gantz, an opponent of Netanyahu, in a speech last week referencing escalating violence between Israelis and Palestinians, and urging Netanyahu to pause the court legislation. “Don’t drag us into an irresponsible constitutional crisis during a security crisis.”
Netanyahu’s allies, unsurprisingly, say it is the opponents of the reform — and the justices of the court themselves — who would be responsible for a constitutional crisis, should the court strike down the law.
Striking down the reform legislation would be a “doomsday weapon,” wrote Dror Eydar, a columnist for the pro-Netanyahu tabloid Israel Hayom, in a piece titled “Inviting a constitutional crisis.” “This striking down would constitute a coup d’etat.”
(Another column four days later in the same publication, however, urged a compromise on the judicial reform in order to avert a constitutional crisis. That piece was written by Miriam Adelson, whose husband Sheldon — the late billionaire philanthropist — founded and funded the paper.)
Netanyahu’s coalition members are still worried enough about the prospect of a constitutional crisis that they’ve agreed to what they refer to as a “softening” of one piece of the legislation. Instead of giving the coalition total control over Supreme Court appointments, the new text of the bill would let the coalition control its first two judicial appointments.
“There’s no doubt that the change we made prevents any real claim that can create a constitutional crisis,” said Justice Minister Yariv Levin, who is spearheading the legislation, on an Israeli news show on Monday.
A view of the Israeli Supreme Court in Jerusalem. (Eddie Gerald via Getty Images)
But then he threw down the gauntlet: If the court still overturns the law, Levin said, “That would cross every red line. We definitely wouldn’t accept it.”
Responding to that claim, Yair Lapid, the leader of the parliamentary opposition, said that if the government disobeys the court, citizens should disobey the government.
“That’s it, the masks are off. The gun is on the table,” Lapid tweeted. “The real prime minister, Yariv Levin, is drawing us into total chaos and a constitutional crisis we won’t be able to come back from. If the justice minister is calling on the government not to obey the law, why should the citizens of Israel obey the government?”
Another Likud lawmaker, Economy Minister Nir Barkat, said he would respect the court’s ruling if it struck the law down. But in any case, the Likud bill doesn’t appear to be a promising avenue toward compromise. “This isn’t softening and compromise, this is Hungary and Poland on steroids,” Labor Party Chair Merav Michaeli said on a radio program on Monday, referring to countries where the government has increased its control over the court system. “From the start, I said we can’t negotiate with them.”
A predecessor of Michaeli’s in the Labor Party has also taken a hard line and — unlike the many voices who worry about a clash of government authorities — has suggested that he would prefer a constitutional crisis to compromise. Ehud Barak, a former Israeli prime minister, said that a constitutional crisis would force senior Israeli military commanders to take sides — and expressed confidence that they would choose to obey the courts.
“It would be a severe constitutional crisis,” Barak said in a speech last month. “That’s when the test of the gatekeepers and defenders of sovereignty would arrive: The head of the Shin Bet, the police commissioner, the chief of staff and the head of the Mossad. I’m convinced that they understand that in a democracy, the only choice is to recognize the supremacy of law and the Supreme Court.”
The mounting threats by military reservists, and comments by former military commanders opposing the court reform, may indicate that the military will opt to follow the court. But Saliternik hopes that’s a choice Israeli forces won’t have to confront.
“This is something that has never happened in Israel,” she said. “It’s so very hard to think about. I very much hope that that government will get a hold of itself and act responsibly.”
—
The post ‘The gun is on the table’: Both sides of Israel’s debate say that a constitutional crisis is coming 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.
