Former New York City Comptroller Brad Lander is redefining his image in the race for the NY-10 seat against Congressman Dan Goldman.
Previously, Lander prominently identified with “progressive Zionism” during earlier campaigns, such as the New York mayoral primary last summer. However, these references have notably faded as he now focuses on discussing “genocide” in Gaza and supports military aid to Israel.
The question arises: why this sudden change?
While Lander once highlighted his progressive Zionism and the importance of a strong alliance between the U.S. and Israel, his political stance seems to have evolved. A spokesperson asserts that his views on Israel have remained largely unchanged over decades.
Despite their similarities—both being middle-aged, educated Jewish politicians with public service backgrounds—Lander and Goldman embrace different nuances. They both support initiatives like Medicare for All and a Green New Deal, while opposing Trump’s deportation policies.
This race has become a competition over minor differences. Lander appears to have distanced himself from the label of “progressive Zionist” as it has become less favorable.
His campaign’s representative contends that Lander’s stance on Israel hasn’t shifted, maintaining a consistent position over many years. Nonetheless, Lander’s critical view of Israel seems more pronounced now, possibly aligning with current political trends.
He isn’t alone in this strategic pivot. Many far-left activists are mobilizing similar tactics across the country to challenge incumbent Democrats, framing it as a progressive movement.
In several races, progressive candidates are attempting to redefine the Democratic primary by distancing themselves from Israel. Incumbents are portrayed as compromised, while challengers present themselves as leaders of a newly invigorated left.
For instance, former state congressman Michael Blake is challenging U.S. Rep. Richie Torres and is focusing on Torres’ connections to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), despite having previously spoken at AIPAC events himself.
And in the Midwest, Evanston’s Democratic mayor, Daniel Biss, sought AIPAC’s backing before entering Congress but later publicly criticized the organization.
Similarly, Congressman Seth Moulton initially aimed for AIPAC’s support in his Senate primary campaign but quickly reversed course, pledging to return donations from AIPAC members. Moulton’s spokesperson emphasized the distinction between supporting Israel and endorsing specific partisan policies.
The issue of AIPAC is central in many of these races, highlighting a shift in the Democratic base’s attitudes toward pro-Israel organizations, leading candidates to distance themselves from previous endorsements.
This reflects more of a rush to conform to the demands of a vocal activist minority rather than an earnest engagement with complex foreign policy issues.
Particularly with the far left reinvigorated by circumstances, there’s a push to challenge the status quo regarding Israel. This trend has recently yielded success in New York City, where Zoran Mamdani won a mayoral race despite a strong stance against Israel.
His victory could motivate others in similar positions, yet those yearning for a return to a more pro-Israel stance might find themselves frustrated; a recent poll indicated that 70% of Democrats oppose Israeli operations in Gaza.
This evolving tactic may help some candidates win elections, but it risks replacing moderate Democrats with more radical figures willing to compromise their principles for political gain. This shift might gradually transform the Democratic Party’s perspective on Israel and its overall commitment to principled leadership.
