Uncategorized
These Jews backed Brad Lander in the primary. Are they taking his advice and voting Mamdani?
For progressive Jews in New York City, the presence on the ballot of one of their own in June’s mayoral primary offered a moment of great excitement.
Brad Lander galvanized many progressive Jewish leaders, and polls found that he outperformed among Jewish voters, drawing about 20% of their first-choice votes on the ranked ballots, compared to 11% of voters citywide.
Lander cross-endorsed Zohran Mamdani, the primary winner, before that vote, and he has since campaigned heavily for the democratic socialist who is leading in all polls. So it might seem self-evident that his Jewish voters would all be backing Mamdani without hesitation. But some of them say they are doing so with misgivings or not doing so at all, in a sign of how fraught the election has been for Jewish voters who are turned off by Mamdani’s strong opposition to Israel.
Jonathan Marcus, a 25-year-old Jewish voter in Manhattan, ranked Lander first in the primary but is casting his vote in the general election for Andrew Cuomo, the former governor who is polling second.
“Someone like Mamdani becoming mayor is, while he won’t explicitly outright say ‘from the river to the sea’ or anything like that, to me, it just enables these protesters,” said Marcus. “For someone who’s going to take their side, being the leader of New York, and it looks like it’s going to happen, I can’t get behind that.”
Richard Goldstein, on the other hand, said he’ll be casting his ballot for Mamdani after ranking Lander first in the primary and leaving Mamdani off. The Jewish former executive editor of the Village Voice, who lives in Greenwich Village, said he had been turned off by Mamdani’s stances on Israel, which he said would be “a recipe for a bloodbath” in the Middle East if fully acted upon.
Because of ranked-choice voting in the primary, “I thought if I put him on the ballot at all, I may end up voting for him, so I left him off,” Goldstein said.
But in the general election, he has decided to give Mamdani his support, after ruling out Cuomo as “truly sleazy” and Republican Curtis Sliwa as “completely inappropriate.” He said he supported most of what Mamdani stands for and believed that Mamdani would not sanction a flourishing of antisemitism, though he said he expected him potentially not to intervene in “radical protests” against Israel.
“This is one of the hardest choices I’ve had to make,” Goldstein said. “I like his program very much. I admire his character. He’s incredibly intelligent and energetic, almost frenetically energetic, which is great in a politician. On the other hand, I really don’t agree with him on Israel. I’m not a Zionist either, I just want Israel to survive.”
Rabbi Jill Jacobs also openly backed Lander in the primary without offering similar support for Mamdani. While she declined to offer more details about her personal vote, last week she urged her followers for the first time to take Mamdani seriously, in the face of a groundswell of opposition from rabbis around the country.
“Was Mamdani my favorite candidate? No (I think everyone knows that was Brad Lander),” wrote Jacobs, the CEO of T’ruah: The Rabbinic Call for Human Rights, in a Facebook post, adding that she was unconvinced that Mamdani, who is 34 and lacks executive experience, could “run a huge, complicated city.”
But she said she believed there was evidence that Mamdani had learned from engaging with Jewish leaders who spoke with him and that she believed the thrust of Mamdani’s campaign, which has centered on affordability, was resonant with New Yorkers.
“Do I think most New Yorkers voted for Mamdani because they wake up every morning thinking about Israel/Palestine?” wrote Jacobs. “No, most New Yorkers wake up thinking about how to pay their rent and take care of their kids and get to work — which is exactly what he ran on and what people responded.”
Back in June, voters who preferred Lander did not all choose to back Mamdani at the same time, despite the candidates’ cross-endorsement. A New York Times analysis found that, after Lander was eliminated during ranked-choice voting, 56% of his first-choice votes were allocated to Mamdani, meaning that they had ranked Mamdani higher than Cuomo or not at all.
But in a surprise, despite Lander’s cross-endorsement of Mamdani, half of his remaining votes were allocated to Cuomo, while the rest of the ballots had not ranked Cuomo or Mamdani and were discarded.
New York mayoral candidate, State Rep. Zohran Mamdani is joined by fellow mayoral candidate Brad Lander during an election night gathering at The Greats of Craft LIC on June 24, 2025 in the Long Island City neighborhood of the Queens borough in New York City. (Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)
Since then, Lander himself says he has been working to convince voters who ranked him first in June to come around to Mamdani if they weren’t already there.
“I talked to some people who in the primary ranked me first and Zohran fifth,” he told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency during a Met Council food distribution event over the summer. “With them, I’ve been asking, OK, he’s been going around to listen to a lot of people to try to allay people’s concerns and fears, what do you want to hear and see that will help you feel more comfortable?”
Andrea Scheer is one of those voters. When it came time to vote in the Democratic mayoral primary this past June, she didn’t hesitate before ranking Lander first. The 76-year-old psychotherapist had already done some leafleting and tabling for him, and she is on the leadership committee of the Upper West Side Action Group, a progressive political group that endorsed Lander ahead of the primary.
She also recalls ranking City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams and State Sen. Zellnor Myrie. Her fourth and last-place ranked-choice vote went to Mamdani, who’d emerged as the likeliest candidate to take on Cuomo — a politician for whom Scheer said she has “no respect.”
“I had to put Mamdani somewhere,” Scheer said in an interview, in order to vote against Cuomo.
But the decision was one Scheer felt uneasy about because of Mamdani’s views on Israel. She cited Mamdani’s past refusal to condemn the phrase “globalize the intifada,” though she acknowledged that he said since that he would discourage its use. She has worries about his support for the movement to boycott Israel and how that could manifest under his leadership. And she also brought up Mamdani’s vow to have Benjamin Netanyahu arrested if the Israeli prime minister sets foot in New York City while he is mayor.
“Not that he’s one of my favorite people — he’s not, at all,” Scheer said about Netayahu. “But you’re going to arrest him? Again, different standards for Israel.”
But now, with Mamdani being the only progressive candidate in an election that’s just days away, Scheer said she must face that uneasiness head on. Given the field of candidates, Scheer said she is coming around on voting for Mamdani.
“I’m 90% there to vote for him,” Scheer said. “Because if I don’t vote for him I’m not voting. And it is absolutely against my DNA to not vote.”
Scheer said she is banking on Mamdani’s ability to grow. “I heard that he was going around to synagogues and talking to rabbis and, I’m sort of counting on him being smart enough to learn,” she said.
Arlene Geiger, the founder and coordinator of the UWS Action Group, estimated that upwards of 90% of group members are voting for Mamdani — but with varying levels of enthusiasm. Geiger, who is Jewish and said about 60% of people involved with her group are, too. She said an event in September where Lander addressed group members’ concerns about Mamdani had made a difference.
“I would say people were impressed with — I mean they love Brad — but I think that for those who were apprehensive, it made them feel better about Zohran,” Geiger said.
“Quite a few people came up afterwards and said, ‘I was on the fence but now I’m voting for Zohran,’” Lander said following an unrelated event later that week. “I’ve certainly had people say to me, ‘I’m not persuaded by you, but I appreciate your taking the time to have this conversation.’ And of course I’ve had people who call me a lot of ugly names, and I don’t reciprocate.”
Scheer said she wasn’t totally won over by attending. She left feeling that Lander had answered questions “a little bit generically,” like by repeating that Mamdani wants all New Yorkers to feel safe, and decided that she would not join others in tabling for Mamdani. But she concluded that she would feel comfortable voting for Mamdani again.
“The fact that he has Brad Lander as his buddy, I think would be helpful when it came to certain issues with Jews and Israel,” she said.
For Hillel Hirshbein, a 56-year old Jewish Harlem resident who identifies as a liberal and a Zionist and who ranked Lander first, Mamdani’s statements about Israel had been a deterrent going into the primary.
“I thought Mamdani’s policies, there were quite a few of them that were good. I thought that he was a much stronger presenter of a vision than some other candidates,” said Hirshbein. “But going into the primary, I had sort of a grave concern about things that he had been recorded saying that were somewhat anti-Israel and anti-Zionist.”
Ultimately, Hirshbein’s opposition to Cuomo made him rank Mamdani last in the primary election despite his “reluctance” to vote for a candidate who opposes Israel.
“I did, with reluctance, add him as my last candidate, because I sort of in my head, ended up ranking this decent guy who has integrity, but with whom I have a significant disagreement, above the guy who I don’t trust, and I think is just a corrupt sleazebag,” said Hirshbein.
Four months later, the career social worker said he had come around to Mamdani more enthusiastically because of what he says he will offer to “help folks that are on the margins.”
“I’m voting for him because of what I think he can do for the city, and setting aside the stuff that I think is rather is really anathema to me from his foreign policy perspectives,” said Hirshbein.
For some Jewish New Yorkers, that leap is proving too hard to make. Polls show that Mamdani is poised for victory next week and may command a majority of votes in a three-way race, even as Cuomo surges near the finish line. But the most recent poll of Jewish voters, from Quinnipiac University, found that 60% backed Cuomo, while just 16% said they favored Mamdani and 12% supported Sliwa.
Ultimately, while Lander said he recognized lingering concerns about Mamdani among New York’s progressive Jews, he still believed the frontrunner would do well among his voters in the general election.
“Obviously, there are some people in the community, in the Jewish community, who aren’t yet comfortable with him,” he said at the Met Council event. “But I believe he’s going to do very well in general, with people who voted for me first, and also with Jewish New Yorkers.”
For at least some of them, their ballots will come with a hefty dose of hope — that their best-case scenario will unfold and their biggest fears will not materialize.
“You can’t cross your fingers in the Star of David, but you know, I’ll hope for the best, I’ll wish him the best,” said Goldstein. Using the Yiddish or Hebrew term for common sense, he continued, “I hope he has the sechel to keep the city intact and growing and to promote his program without sparking ethnic strife.”
—
The post These Jews backed Brad Lander in the primary. Are they taking his advice and voting Mamdani? appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
EU seeks to advance trade ban on Israeli settlements
(JTA) — The European Union could be leaning toward banning trade with Israeli settlements in the West Bank.
Foreign ministers debated various tactics to respond to the settlements on Monday at their monthly council meeting in Brussels, against the backdrop of rising violence by settlers and efforts by the Israeli government to expand settlements in Palestinian territories.
In a press conference following the meeting, the EU’s foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, said one possibility had stood out.
“The option that got the most support was banning the trade with illegal settlements,” she said. All 27 member states consider Israeli settlements in the West Bank to violate international law.
Kallas added, “We tasked the ambassadors to take this work forward, and probably will also have an extraordinary meeting on this.”
No decisions have yet been made, and the path forward is uncertain. Some EU member nations favor aggressive action against the settlements, while others are unlikely to back any measures that take aim at Israel. A number are in the middle and have not decided whether they support trade bans.
The level of agreement between European governments needed to enact a partial or full trade ban on Israeli settlements remains an open question. Kallas said it was the European Council’s legal opinion that voting on trade issues called for a qualified majority, meaning that 15 out of 27 states would have to vote in favor, representing at least 65% of the EU population.
But she also acknowledged that legal experts disagreed about how much backing was needed for a trade ban. “You can always find different lawyers who come up with different ideas,” she said.
Israel’s Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar accused Kallas of an “obsessive campaign against Israel” in a post on X. “There was no consensus. There was no qualified majority. In fact, there was no majority at all,” he wrote, adding, “Tricks like this do nothing to advance our shared interests.”
The EU has hotly debated measures against Israel as settlements in the West Bank have expanded and settler violence has sharply intensified over recent years. The Israeli NGOs Peace Now and Kerem Navot said in a report last week that “the current Israeli government has advanced de facto annexation of the West Bank at an unprecedented pace.”
The ministers considered measures including a stricter export licensing system, higher tariffs and a partial or outright ban on goods produced over the pre-1967 lines. The options were first presented in a paper last week by the European Commission, the EU’s executive branch, as pressure mounted from European governments.
Kallas said these potential moves were not “options against Israel,” but “options against the illegal settlements that undermined the two-state solution.” She told reporters before the meeting that member states had been pressing for a trade ban on Israeli settlements, saying, “Everyone agrees that the situation in the West Bank is really intolerable.”
In May, the EU sanctioned Israeli settlers over violence against Palestinians after Hungary’s new government, led by Peter Magyar, gave its approval and allowed the states to reach a consensus.
To protest the Gaza war, the commission last year proposed suspending the EU’s free trade agreement with Israel as set out under the EU-Israel Association Agreement, the cornerstone of economic and political cooperation between Europe and Israel. The proposal was not advanced because it lacked the majority support of 15 member states.
The EU is Israel’s largest trading partner, accounting for 33.1% of its imports and 29.4% of its exports in 2025, according to a summary on the European Commission website, which did not provide data on settler goods. The free trade agreement does not apply to goods originating from Israeli businesses located over the pre-1967 lines.
Revoking the association agreement requires unanimous approval from the EU’s 27 member states, while a partial suspension, such as freezing the free trade agreement, calls for a qualified majority. Germany, Italy, Hungary and Czechia have consistently opposed such suspensions.
Israel’s most vocal critics in Europe, including Ireland and Spain, have pushed for suspending the association agreement along with proposing their own import bans at the national level. Ireland now holds the rotating presidency of the European Council, a six-month term that ends in December 2026.
The legal basis of trade restrictions on Israel lies at the heart of debates in the EU. Support from a qualified majority is sufficient to enact a commercial policy, while changes in the common foreign and security policy — such as sanctions — require unanimity.
Some legal scholars have argued that an EU ban on imports from Israeli settlements should be imposed as a trade measure rather than a sanction, making it easier to pass.
A group of 40 scholars said in an open letter last month to Kallas, trade chief Maroš Šefčovič and European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen that a blanket ban on settlement imports had a legal basis under the EU’s common commercial policy. Claims that unanimity was needed for the prohibition were “grounded in political rather than legal considerations,” they said.
The scholars also referenced an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice in 2024, which said that Israel’s military control of Palestinian territories in the West Bank constituted an illegal occupation.
“In that regard, it should be noted that the EU Court of Justice has ruled that, in its acts, the EU is ‘bound to observe international law in its entirety,’” they said.
Daniel Mariaschin, Honorary CEO of the pro-Israel Jewish advocacy organization B’nai Brith International, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency that reducing trade “would only weaken one of Europe’s most important partnerships in the region.”
“There are those within the EU who are looking for any way to undercut Israel’s international standing, and this is yet another example,” Mariaschin said.
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post EU seeks to advance trade ban on Israeli settlements appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
PEN America president, defending Israel’s critics, resigns after report warns of threats to Jewish authors
(JTA) — The president of PEN America resigned over the weekend in protest of a report on boycotts targeting Jewish and Israeli authors, part of yet another round of internal division over Israel at the literary free-speech institution.
Dinaw Mengestu, an Ethiopian-American novelist and Bard College professor, told The Atlantic he was stepping down because he believed the PEN report, “A Silent Moratorium,” failed to defend the free-speech rights of participants in the movement to boycott Israel.
“It’s the First Amendment that allows all of us to engage in boycotts, not PEN America,” Mengestu told the publication. “PEN America as a free expression organization is supposed to defend that right.”
The author did not respond to multiple Jewish Telegraphic Agency requests for comment, but in an Instagram post Monday alluded to an interest in creating a new organization to rival the prominent nonprofit, which defends the free expression rights other writers.
In response to an interview request, PEN sent a statement to JTA saying it was “grateful” for Mengestu’s leadership and would “respect” his decision. The statement also alluded to PEN’s own past turmoil: “We tell hard stories, in politically challenging moments, about writers from a range of perspectives, even when it’s uncomfortable for us given our own recent history.”
In its report, published on its blog, PEN described “Jewish and Israeli writers who feel that the mainstream literary world is increasingly shutting them out because of their identity, nationality, or views.” Interview subjects include several Israel critics, as well as literary agents who assert that they face more difficulties signing Jewish authors after the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel and amid the subsequent war in Gaza. The report also repeatedly cited a JTA report about a 2024 viral list of “Zionist” authors to boycott.
Among other details, PEN’s report revealed that Israeli novelist Etgar Keret and public radio host Ira Glass had cancelled a planned live event in Australia over fears of threats and protest.
“This silencing and exclusion of writers is a threat to what PEN America is fundamentally committed to defending: a culture of free expression for all,” according to the report.
In addition to the report, PEN also altered its institutional policy toward cultural boycotts, which the organization has long opposed. Although its report on Jewish authors asserted that boycotts “threaten the free expression rights” of their targets, the revised guidelines say that the group will also defend the right of writers to participate in boycotts.
Mengestu’s resignation comes at a perilous moment for Jews facing cultural boycotts, both within the standard-bearers of PEN and elsewhere. PEN’s Jewish former longtime CEO stepped down in 2024 following months of blowback from rank-and-file authors who felt the organization was insufficiently critical of Israel and caused PEN to cancel a festival for global authors.
Since the leadership change, PEN leadership has published and retracted a condemnation of a boycott effort trained at an Israeli comedian and also published a report cataloguing Israel’s “cultural destruction in Gaza.”
Mengestu had assumed the role of board president in 2025. But PEN’s report about Jewish and Israeli writers on Thursday, he wrote, “makes clear that [change] will not happen.”
The Anti-Defamation League said it was “deeply troubled” by Mengestu’s resignation Monday. “Freedom of expression means opposing efforts to boycott, silence, or exclude writers because of their identity or nationality,” the organization tweeted, saying that the author’s decision to leave PEN over his objections to the report on Jewish authors “sends a chilling message.” Jewish authors also objected.
“Imagine running a free expression org and resigning because it refuses to blacklist authors based on their nationality,” the author David Zweig wrote on X, musing whether Mengestu would object to boycotting authors from his birth country: “Ethiopia doesn’t exactly have a good human rights record.”
In response to The Atlantic’s story that quoted sources from inside PEN who were critical of his resignation, Mengestu wrote a lengthy Instagram post Monday in which he stated, “This piece is about trying to suppress constitutionally protected speech,” criticized past PEN reports critical of the BDS movement, and added, “What PEN America fails to understand is that boycott is a form of dialogue.”
He announced his intention to “help make something better,” receiving affirmative comments from notable authors including Viet Thanh Nguyen, Angela Flournoy, Jewish pro-Palestinian novelist Jess Row and Pulitzer Prize-winner Benjamin Moser, author of a forthcoming history of Jewish anti-Zionism.
Other Jewish authors on the left were among those defending Mengestu’s decision to step down.
“Dinaw is one hundred percent correct that this kind of fake victim propaganda can be used to support anti-Boycott legislation which violates the First Amendment and is everywhere as popular support for Palestinians grows,” author Sarah Schulman wrote on Facebook. Calling PEN’s blog about Jews “one of those fake anti-semitism pieces,” Schulman added, “If PEN wants to survive, they have to get out of the Israel/Zionism business.”
The post PEN America president, defending Israel’s critics, resigns after report warns of threats to Jewish authors appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Church of England backs study of Palestinian Christian document accusing Israel of genocide
(JTA) — The Church of England’s legislative body voted Monday to encourage churches across England to engage with a document produced by Palestinian Christians that accuses Israel of genocide despite requests from Jewish organizations and Britain’s chief rabbi to reject it.
The document is titled “Moment of Truth: Faith in a Time of Genocide” and is also known as Kairos II, after the Palestinian Christian movement Kairos Palestine that produced it. It describes Israel’s military campaign in Gaza as a genocide, states that Israel is a “colonial enterprise built on racism,” and says decades of “occupation,” “apartheid” and “settler colonialism” are at the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The vote on Monday does not adopt the accusations as church doctrine but says the church should hear the documents as “heartfelt expressions of the lived experience of Palestinian Christians,” and to engage with them in order to better understand the conflict.
Ahead of the debate in York, several Jewish organizations expressed concerns, and Chief Rabbi Sir Ephraim Mirvis asked Synod members to reject the amendment. Mirvis called Kairos II “deeply concerning” and that it “risks undermining decades of careful relationship-building” between Christians and Jews.
“It is truly shocking that a document which purports to speak in the name of truth contains so much falsehood,” he said.
Afterwards, the president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, Phil Rosenberg, issued a statement calling the passage of the motion “highly problematic.”
“Kairos Palestine may come from a place of genuine pain, but the falsehoods and distortions of Kairos II, including its erasure of Jewish identity and experience, is a prescription for more division and not the answer to conflict in the Middle East,” he said.
“This document reflects the pain and trauma of the Palestinian people. As a pastor, I hear the cry of our Palestinian Christian sisters and brothers — a cry that rises from the ruins of Gaza, and from the violence and oppression of the West Bank,” she said.
She added, ”I also hear the concerns of the chief rabbi, the co-leads of the Movement for Progressive Judaism, and the Board of Deputies, and I thank them for their honesty.” She said the church remained opposed to antisemitism and committed to safety for Israelis as well as Palestinians.
The Synod debate followed Mullally’s visit to the West Bank in June, where she met Palestinian Christian communities in Birzeit. During the visit she said, “I will use my role as Archbishop to seek the peace you desire and the freedom you deserve.”
The debate marks the ascendance of Israel-related issues in another major church, after the Catholic Church’s Pope Leo XIV angered Jewish groups soon after being elected last year by endorsing an investigation into whether Israel committed genocide in Gaza.
The post Church of England backs study of Palestinian Christian document accusing Israel of genocide appeared first on The Forward.
