Campaigning Dems across the country are rejecting Israel to stand out from the progressive pack

Brad Lander, the former New York City Comptroller, has rebranded himself in his run against Congressman Dan Goldman for the NY-10 seat. 

In prior campaigns — including as recently as last summer’s NYC mayoral primary — Lander spoke openly and proudly about his “progressive Zionism” and the importance of a strong US–Israel alliance. But after launching his congressional bid, those references quietly vanished. 

Now, he’s talking about “genocide” in Gaza and calls to condition military aid to Israel. 

Why the sudden shift? 

Lander and Goldman are nearly indistinguishable: middle aged, Jewish, well-educated, and with histories of public service. They’re aligned on the Green New Deal, Medicare for All, taxing the wealthy and fierce opposition to President Trump’s deportation agenda. 

So, the race has come down to a narcissism of small differences. Lander has chosen to differentiate himself by going after an actual “progressive Zionist” — a label he himself seems to have dropped as it became less fashionable.

Lander’s campaign spokesperson disputes this characterization, saying, “Brad hasn’t changed his position on Israel, it’s been broadly consistent for decades.”

While Lander’s position as generally critical of Israel might not have changed, his political perception has. He’s been signaling his progressive purity by more aggressively opposing Israel as it’s become politically advantageous.

And he is not the only one doing it. Far-left activists across the country are mounting primary challenges against incumbent Democrats with the same playbook and calling it a progressive revolt.

In race after race, progressive hopefuls are trying to turn Democratic primaries into contests over who can disavow Israel the most. Incumbents are painted as compromised or corrupted, while challengers present themselves as vanguards of a newly purified left.

Other examples include former New York Assemblyman Michael Blake, now challenging Congressman Ritchie Torres and who has made Torres’s ties to the strong US-Israel lobbying group, American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a central line of attack. Yet Blake himself was once a featured AIPAC speaker. He even authored a position paper affirming his support for Israel and black-Jewish unity.

Over in the Midwest, Daniel Biss, the Democratic mayor of Evanston, Illinois, reportedly met with AIPAC last year to seek their support. But once he officially entered a race for Congress, he publicly denounced AIPAC and pledged to reject its backing.  

Neither Blake nor Biss responded to requests for comment.

And in Massachusetts, Rep. Seth Moulton likewise sought AIPAC’s endorsement before entering a primary against Senator Ed Markey — only to pivot once in the race and put AIPAC in his political crosshairs by denouncing the organization and pledging to return any donations from its members.  

In a statement to me, Moulton’s communications director said in part, “Rep. Moulton returned AIPAC donations because there is a difference between supporting Israel and supporting Netanyahu’s partisan agenda … When it became clear that AIPAC’s direction and mission would not change — particularly its continued alignment with the Netanyahu government — Seth made the decision to return past contributions.”

AIPAC has become a point of contention in many of these races. Some Democratic candidates who previously supported the organization are turning against it as the Democratic base has become more hostile to groups that support Israel. These candidates are using AIPAC to signal their opposition to Israel, even though it’s often blatantly disingenuous. 

None of this suggests a party wrestling in good faith with a complex foreign-policy question. It looks more like a scramble to satisfy a vocal activist minority’s purity test.  

With Democrats in the minority in both chambers of Congress and Donald Trump back in the White House, the far left has channeled its frustration and energy into ideological enforcement against Israel. 

The tactic recently worked in New York City. Despite his hardline stance against Israel in the most Jewish city in the country, Zohran Mamdani beat out the more moderate candidates for mayor.  

His success in last year’s election will embolden these forces.  

Those hoping for a return to a pro-Israeli consensus will be disappointed. According to an Ipsos poll in September 2025, 70% of Democrats disapprove of the Israeli operation in Gaza.

This shifting strategy may work to get them elected, but it will replace pragmatic Democrats with radicals and ideologs who are willing to abandon their convictions for political gain. Over time, this will likely reshape the Democratic party’s posture on Israel, and its broader commitment to principled leadership.   

Sam Kay is the Director of External Affairs at the Manhattan Institute. His views are his own and do not represent those of his employer.