Despite being banned from campus, UCLA’s Students for Justice in Palestine chapter is actively lobbying candidates to influence upcoming student government elections, Jewish Insider has learned. 

SJP contacted candidates and asked them to complete an attached questionnaire in order to secure the group’s endorsement, according to an email reviewed by JI. SJP is permitted to endorse in the race as an “external organization” since it is no longer officially recognized on campus, according to the election board’s guidelines. 

“This is more proof that the anti-Jewish movement — even when banned from our campus — continues to break the rules to intimidate their fellow UCLA students,” UCLA Hillel’s executive director, Daniel Gold, told JI. “Student government should honor premier student leaders — and should be free of any influence by those banned for bad behavior.”

A UCLA student affairs spokesperson told JI, “Students for Justice in Palestine is not recognized as an official organization at UCLA nor receives any university resources. We want to make clear that candidates for student government may choose to ignore questions as they see fit.” 

UCLA banned SJP as a campus organization indefinitely in March 2025 after the group led a demonstration outside the home of UC Regent Jay Sures, who is Jewish. SJP members left red handprints on Sures’ garage door, accusing him of having “blood on his hands” amid the Israel-Hamas war.

Last month, UCLA’s student government condemned a campus event featuring former Israeli hostage Omer Shem Tov, labeling the speaker selection as “selective platforming of narratives that obscure the broader reality of ongoing state violence” and “a troubling disregard for Palestinian life.”   

Sures, who is also vice chairman of United Talent Agency, told JI at the time that UCLA’s student government was “shortsighted, antisemitic or both,” and called its members “lunatics” for condemning Shem Tov’s speech. 

When thousands of Michigan’s most ardent Democratic activists gathered in Detroit on Sunday for the party’s nominating convention, Decky Alexander was thrilled: 200 people were in the room for a Jewish Democratic Caucus meeting, more than double the 70 people who showed up last year in its first official gathering. 

Candidates for statewide office, from the U.S. Senate to attorney general, came by to pitch voters as activists schmoozed over bagels.

“It was incredibly energizing and affirming. That’s how the day began,” Alexander, who chairs the caucus, told Jewish Insider in an interview on Tuesday. “It didn’t end that way.”

As the day went on, Jewish Democrats were alarmed to see pro-Israel voices within the party marginalized and shouted down. 

“Our Jewish caucus brought a lot of people to the convention, and I was with many of those people who were first-time conventiongoers. They were — I would use the term shell-shocked,” said Joan Lowenstein, a lawyer and former Ann Arbor city councilmember.

Rep. Haley Stevens (D-MI), a moderate and pro-Israel candidate for Senate, faced loud, sustained boos when she spoke in front of the main convention room. One person spotted an attendee on Sunday wearing a shirt that said “Resistance until liberation,” with an image showing someone wearing a keffiyeh throwing rocks. 

The main reason that activists gathered that day was to vote to nominate candidates for a range of positions, including attorney general and secretary of state, distinct from other states where voters directly elect their party’s primary nominees. 

The outcome of one relatively low-level race generated the most headlines: delegates’ decision to nominate Amir Makled, a Dearborn attorney with a history of social media posts praising Hezbollah, for a position on the University of Michigan Board of Regents. He unseated incumbent Jordan Acker, who is Jewish and was in part targeted due to his calls to discipline anti-Israel student protesters during the 2024 encampment at the Ann Arbor campus.

Acker told The Detroit News afterward that the level of antisemitism among Michigan Democrats is “extensive.”

“The question we have to ask as Jews is whether we still belong here,” said Acker, a Democrat. 

The Democratic Party congratulated Makled in social media posts. What remains unclear is just how far party leaders will go to support Makled as he proceeds to the general election. Curtis Hertel, the chair of the Michigan Democratic Party, did not respond to a request for comment. 

But Makled’s nomination is cause for concern among many Jewish Democrats. 

“I certainly cannot vote for somebody who praises Hezbollah and uplifts posts that use ‘Jew’ as a slur. This was an unacceptable nomination, and I simply cannot affiliate with somebody who harbors those views,” Jeremy Moss, a state senator who is running for Congress in the Detroit suburbs, told JI on Tuesday. 

Rep. Kristen McDonald Rivet (D-MI), a moderate Democrat representing a swing district, who is not Jewish, on Tuesday described the scenes from the convention as “deeply troubling,” and in particular criticized the party’s nomination of Makled. 

For Jewish Democrats who are not willing to disavow Israel, the question of what to do in a race like the Board of Regents is uncertain. Lowenstein, the Ann Arbor activist, said she would “never” support Makled, but that she also would not vote for a Republican. 

“I think Jewish voters are now in a position where we have to look at each person, and not look at their party, but look at what they stand for,” she said. 

“I need to create the table, not just always be invited to the table. I just don’t know what that looks like,” said Decky Alexander, the Jewish caucus chair. “It’s a heartbreak. I felt, in moments, is this going to be a breakup? I don’t think so, but we’ve been feeling this way, a lot of us, for a long time.” 

The Jewish voters who attended the convention on Sunday are among the most committed Democrats in the state, which makes it more notable that some were left questioning their place in the party. 

“They think that there’s shrinking room for them in spaces that claim to be inclusive,” said Elyssa Schmier, the Anti-Defamation League’s Michigan director. “That’s kind of the saying of the Democratic Party: ‘We have a big tent, big-tent politics.’ It did not feel that way at the convention.” 

Even the activists most disillusioned by Sunday’s events acknowledge that the convention attendees are not necessarily representative of the state’s Democratic electorate. All it took to attend the convention was registering as a party member a month beforehand and paying a nominal fee. 

“I don’t know that it was an accurate representation of where the broader Democratic electorate would be, say, in a primary,” said Moss. “But there’s no question, there was incivility at best [and] displays of Jewish antagonism at worst in the convention hall.”

Jewish activists hope this moment of upheaval can be a chance for Jewish Democrats to reassert their place in the party, even if things feel tenuous and difficult at present.

“I need to create the table, not just always be invited to the table. I just don’t know what that looks like,” said Alexander, the Jewish caucus chair. “It’s a heartbreak. I felt, in moments, is this going to be a breakup? I don’t think so, but we’ve been feeling this way, a lot of us, for a long time.” 

Between now and the general election, Alexander wants to talk to as many candidates as possible about whether they plan to take the concerns of Jewish voters seriously. 

“I haven’t changed. I am not a Republican or a conservative. I cannot win my district as an independent. But I also wonder how I can continue to carry this party banner with anything approaching pride, or rather, without anxiety and ambivalence,” state Rep. Noah Arbit, a Democrat who represents West Bloomfield, told JI.

“This isn’t identity politics. This is figuring out, in a pluralistic nation like the United States, does everyone have a place? And we want the people who are running for office to answer: Do the Jews have a place in your vision and your platform?” she said.

Moss said he intends to use his platform as a state lawmaker and congressional candidate to answer that question clearly: Jews do have a place in the Democratic Party.

“My solution is to offer my candidacy for everybody and to ensure that folks know that there is a lane for Jewish Democrats in this moment, that we don’t have to feel hopeless, we don’t have to feel politically homeless, that this is a lane that we have to solidify here,” said Moss. “My core values as a Democrat are really Jewish values.”

For state Rep. Noah Arbit, a Democrat who represents West Bloomfield, the site of an antisemitic attack last month, Sunday’s convention adds to angst he has been feeling about his party for years. He was the one who founded the Jewish caucus in 2019, in response to rising antisemitism on the political left. 

“I haven’t changed. I am not a Republican or a conservative. I cannot win my district as an independent. But I also wonder how I can continue to carry this party banner with anything approaching pride, or rather, without anxiety and ambivalence,” he told JI. Yet he said he will not cave to pressure from the party’s far-left flank.

“I certainly won’t be run out of representing my community by a band of extremists,” said Arbit. “So I need to stay.”

As Washington, D.C., voters get ready to elect their first new mayor in more than a decade, the two leading candidates — former colleagues on the Council of the District of Columbia — are proposing drastically different visions for the city’s future: political moderation or democratic socialism.

In an interview with Jewish Insider this week at his campaign headquarters in Northeast Washington, former Councilmember Kenyan McDuffie drew a direct contrast between his campaign and that of his Democratic Socialists of America-endorsed rival, Janeese Lewis George. 

“I didn’t seek, nor would I accept, the endorsement of Democratic Socialists of America, or any organization, for that matter, that requires some sort of divisive pledge to exclude people that are a part of the fabric of the community of the District of Columbia,” McDuffie said.

He was referring to a DSA endorsement questionnaire that asked candidates not to engage with “the Israeli government or Zionist lobby groups.” Lewis George, a longtime DSA member, vowed not to attend events that promote Zionism when she filled out the questionnaire, which earned her the DSA endorsement. 

Lewis George’s responses sparked concern among many in the Jewish community, and she apologized in a closed-door meeting with rabbis in March. But she has not offered any public remorse. 

“I think it’s important for elected officials to have the courage to say in public things that they say in private,” McDuffie said. “Any message that depends on taking a pledge to exclude entire communities as a condition of a political endorsement is extraordinarily divisive and disturbing.” 

Amid the controversy surrounding her DSA questionnaire and the meeting with rabbis, Lewis George released a statement last month pledging to stand firm in both her opposition to antisemitism and her support for “Palestinian human rights.” McDuffie told JI that he did not see the mayoral race as a place to litigate debates about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

“I think a mayor’s responsibility is to look out for all of its residents, particularly our most vulnerable residents,” said McDuffie. “At a time where the Jewish community is seeing rising antisemitism worldwide, and even the District of Columbia, it’s important that they understand that their elected officials are going to use every tool possible to protect them.” 

“I didn’t bring those issues into this race. My opponent did it when she sought the endorsement of Democratic Socialists of America,” McDuffie said. “I’m not running for Congress. I’m not engaging in the crafting of foreign policy. I’m running for mayor of Washington, D.C., the most beautifully diverse city in America, and I’m running to fight and deliver for all D.C.”

McDuffie is actively courting votes in the Jewish community. He will appear next week at a meet-and-greet with Jewish young professionals in the District. 

“I think a mayor’s responsibility is to look out for all of its residents, particularly our most vulnerable residents,” said McDuffie. “At a time where the Jewish community is seeing rising antisemitism worldwide, and even the District of Columbia, it’s important that they understand that their elected officials are going to use every tool possible to protect them.” 

McDuffie pledged to speak out against antisemitic violence and rhetoric so that the District’s Jewish residents “understand that they have a mayor and elected leadership who’s going to strongly oppose those kinds of activities and threats and do everything humanly possible to protect them.” He called the city’s nonprofit security grant program, which provides funding to several local synagogues to pay for security expenses, a “nonnegotiable,” even if the city faces other budget challenges. 

Born and raised in Northeast Washington, McDuffie entered politics circuitously. He worked as a mail carrier for the USPS before ultimately going to college and law school, in a career pivot he said was inspired by witnessing the death of two friends to the crack cocaine epidemic of the 1980s and 1990s. He spent a few years as a prosecutor, in Maryland and at the Justice Department, before running for Council in 2013. McDuffie represented Ward 5, which includes the neighborhoods Bloomingdale, Eckington, Brookland and Fort Totten, until being elected to a citywide at-large position in 2022 where he served until January.

His message now is about affordability, a buzzword brought into style last year by New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, a DSA member like Lewis George. The way to make the city more affordable, according to McDuffie, is “economic growth with guardrails” — a contrast to the sweeping changes promised by Lewis George, the viability of which McDuffie has questioned.

“They want experience. They want vision. They want bold. They want change. What they don’t want is more empty promises,” said McDuffie. “What they don’t want is rhetoric that isn’t supported by an actual plan. What they don’t want is somebody who engages with organizations seeking to divide residents, and what we think we have as an advantage is both a vision that is about building a big tent and inviting people in and a record.” 

“We’re the nation’s capital. We can walk and chew gum,” McDuffie said. “I think that’s important for people to understand, that we can have innovative, transformational policies at the same time that we’re delivering core services on time and within a budget that doesn’t default to raising taxes on hard-working residents.” 

McDuffie seemed to recognize that pushing a vision of pragmatism may not be as seductive as promises powered by major spending increases. For instance, both Lewis George and McDuffie want to build new housing in the city, but Lewis George has promised to build 72,000 new units compared to 12,000 suggested by McDuffie, The Washington Post reported. But McDuffie argued that voters want honesty.

“They want experience. They want vision. They want bold. They want change. What they don’t want is more empty promises,” said McDuffie. “What they don’t want is rhetoric that isn’t supported by an actual plan. What they don’t want is somebody who engages with organizations seeking to divide residents, and what we think we have as an advantage is both a vision that is about building a big tent and inviting people in and a record.” 

Though McDuffie and Lewis George are widely viewed as the frontrunners in the race, they are not the only candidates running in the Democratic primary which, in deep blue Washington, will almost certainly decide the eventual victor. Other candidates in the June 16 primary include real estate developer Gary Goodweather and former Councilmember Vincent Orange.

Tomorrow (April 15) isn’t just Tax Day, but it’s also the deadline for candidates vying in the pivotal midterms to report their latest fundraising figures — an important marker on the political calendar in determining which candidates are raising enough money to run credible campaigns and which will be left financially behind. 

Historically, having a critical mass of prominent, well-heeled supporters was a prerequisite for a congressional candidate being able to get their message out to the public. 

Not long ago, candidates with extreme or exotic views — such as those affiliated with the Democratic Socialists of America on the left or those embracing conspiracy theories on the far right — would have a hard time being taken seriously by rank-and-file donors, who typically want a back a winner and would shy away from those with far-out-of-the-mainstream views. 

Similarly, the pro-Israel community historically benefited from the presence of strong organizations like AIPAC that helped pool supporters’ money to favored candidates, giving them outsized impact within both parties. More recently, AIPAC’s super PAC has led the way in engaging directly in political campaigns, directly spending money on behalf of favored candidates and attacking some of the most radical candidates on the ballot.

But in our brave new decentralized world of politics and media, where a critical mass of small-dollar donations from passionate individuals can easily be amassed online (especially through an incendiary video clip or well-timed fundraising appeal), the comparative advantage of having a defined group of reliable donors can be neutralized by an online feeding frenzy that galvanizes enough individuals to give to a radical cause or candidate. 

At the same time, the social media-driven public conversation — without any guardrails and few standards — has totally transformed what is viewed as normal. One recent example: 27-year-old Kat Abughazaleh, a far-left social media influencer without any roots in the Chicago-area district she was running in, raised well over $3 million for her (unsuccessful) primary campaign, fueled by high-volume, low-dollar, largely out-of-state contributions. 

If Tip O’Neill once said all politics is local, the opposite is true today. All politics is now nationalized, with the most outlandish hot takes and incendiary commentary most likely to go viral. 

The same viral clips that lead unsuspecting audiences to extreme voices like Hasan Piker and Candace Owens live in the same ecosystem that makes it easy for a candidate like Abughazaleh to bring in big money. It’s not a coincidence that former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) were among the top fundraisers within their respective parties this cycle. 

There are two different ways for Jewish and pro-Israel voices to adapt to this still-evolving revolution in both media and politics — one on the supply side and one on the demand side. 

On the demand side, it’s clear that the algorithmic preferences for leading social media platforms prioritize constant unthinking engagement (at best) and rage and radicalism (at worst). 

It doesn’t seem like a coincidence that Twitter/X’s decision to unblock neo-Nazi influencer Nick Fuentes from the platform in May 2024 quickly led to an upsurge in antisemitic content being embraced by a wide range of far-right podcasters. There are thoughtful policy proposals that have been floated to do a better job regulating what has increasingly become an anarchic space. 

Most of the focus, however, has been on how politicians and outside groups can adapt on the supply side. As Obama campaign manager David Plouffe wrote in The New York Times last week, “A successful campaign in 2026 must operate like a full-time production studio…  It means creating output tailored specifically for TikTok or Instagram or YouTube.”

Plouffe also noted that campaigns need to focus on what he called “answer engine optimization” for artificial intelligence, essentially working to ensure friendlier responses from AI bots. 

If the old media and fundraising model was to rely on scale (of donations) and volume (of ads) to persuade voters, the new media ecosystem requires nimbleness and adaptability. Raising the most money and saturating the airwaves with advertisements was once a time-tested tool of success. 

Now, campaigns and advocacy groups alike are facing a multifront challenge, figuring out whether to accommodate what appears to be a new political and media reality where the loudest and most polarizing voices prevail — or fight for a more fair-and-balanced ecosystem while also engaging with the fractured landscape as best as possible. 

Ted Deutch, the CEO of the American Jewish Committee and a former Democratic congressman, said that Democratic lawmakers and candidates should not associate with far-left streamer Hasan Piker, who has a record of antisemitism and support for terrorism.

His comments come at a time when a small but growing group of Democrats has begun speaking out against Piker, particularly as he’s set to join a far-left Michigan Senate candidate on the trail. 

Deutch drew parallels between Piker on the far left and white supremacist influencer Nick Fuentes on the far right.

“In both cases, each party should make clear that voices that aren’t representative of their parties have no place in an official campaign setting — shouldn’t be welcomed, shouldn’t be welcomed in to share their views,” Deutch said. “In Piker’s case, his record speaks for itself, the same with Nick Fuentes. I don’t need to go into details about who they are or what they represent. Neither one of them belongs in the middle of the political process as a result of candidates choosing to put them there.”

He said he’s expressed that view to candidates on both sides of the aisle and would keep those conversations private, but “my hope is that we’ll see some clarity on that issue going forward.”

“The challenges that we’re facing now with increasing polarization and the rise of extremism on the edges of both political parties is bad enough. Injecting the views of antisemites into that mix and welcoming those views is dangerous,” Deutch said.

Voters are casting ballots today in the special election for the ruby-red House seat previously held by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), but the final outcome will likely remain uncertain for another month. 

With 17 candidates on the all-party ballot, the race is expected to go to a runoff — unless any candidate receives 50% or more of the vote, making today’s race effectively a competition over which two candidates are likely to finish with the most support. 

On the GOP side, the race is dominated by two candidates. The first is Clay Fuller, a local district attorney, veteran and former White House fellow who is backed by President Donald Trump. 

The second, former state Sen. Colton Moore, a hard-line conservative rabble-rouser often at odds with his own party’s leadership, is running as the anti-establishment populist — a profile that more closely matches Greene’s. 

The district is one of the most Republican in the country: Trump carried the district by 37 percentage points in 2024, and paid a visit to the district in late February to throw his support behind Fuller.

A third Republican candidate, Brian Stover, a local businessman, has raised a significant amount of campaign cash and is a wild card. 

On the Democratic side, the likely leader is Army veteran Shawn Harris, who lost to Greene in 2024 by nearly 30 points. He’s pulled in $4.2 million from Democrats outraged by Greene and who’ve been attracted by a far-fetched pitch that he can flip the seat. But he’s likely to secure a runoff spot, given how many Republican candidates are on the ballot.

Fuller’s campaign has been touting Trump’s endorsement, and his own military service. Fuller’s Air Force career included work on counterterrorism operations, and he was deployed in 2024 to the Al Udeid airbase in Qatar supporting U.S. Central Command operations. He also has the support of the conservative Club for Growth.

He has backed the U.S.-Israeli offensive against Iran, and expressed support for Israel. “President Trump tried the peace route with Iran not once, not twice, but THREE separate times—and they refused. He’s the peace President, but you can’t negotiate with a death cult,” Fuller said, emphasizing he had supported operations against Iran and that the regime and its proxies had killed many Americans.

Despite not receiving Trump’s support, Moore is also trying to tie himself closely to the president, describing himself on his campaign website as “Trump’s #1 Defender” and “a Proven Warrior for President Trump” — pointing to his vocal efforts to contest the results of the 2020 election and opposition to subsequent investigations of Trump and his allies — and using the campaign slogan, “God. Guns. Trump.”

Moore has repeatedly found himself at odds with Georgia’s GOP establishment, having been expelled from the Republican caucus, banned from the Statehouse floor and arrested when he tried to enter the 2025 State of the State address.

Moore doesn’t appear to have addressed the war in Iran, but said, days after the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attacks, “The Jewish people are the indigenous people of Israel.” And according to a candidate questionnaire from 2022, he is a longtime supporter of Israel, having attended AIPAC conferences and, as a college student, having served as co-chair of the University of Georgia AIPAC chapter. “There is no Palestinian land, it is all the land of Israel,” he said in the questionnaire.

So despite his MAGA bona fides, his record appears decidedly more supportive of Israel than Greene, who has advanced antisemitic conspiracy theories and became one of the few anti-Israel Republicans in Congress.

However, Moore was also the only Republican member of the state Senate to vote against a bill in 2024 codifying the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism — echoing Greene’s stance on the Antisemitism Awareness Act in the same year.

As of Feb. 18, Stover had raised $940,000 (around two-thirds of that was in the form of a personal loan to his campaign), Fuller $787,000 and Moore $342,000.

The normally voluble Greene has stayed on the sidelines in the race to replace her, not endorsing or rallying for any of the candidates, as she continues to air her disappointment with Trump and the GOP leadership.

As California’s gubernatorial race heats up, five leading candidates said at a forum on Thursday that they are committed to deepening the state’s partnership with Israel and fighting efforts to boycott the Jewish state. 

The candidates — Democrats Antonio Villaraigosa, a former state lawmaker and Los Angeles mayor; Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA); Tom Steyer, a billionaire businessman and former presidential candidate; and Matt Mahan, a tech entrepreneur and mayor of San Jose; along with Republican Steve Hilton, a conservative commentator who was once an advisor to former British Prime Minister David Cameron — appeared together Thursday night at a Los Angeles candidate forum hosted by Jewish California (formerly JPAC), the Bay Area Jewish Community Relations Council, the Los Angeles Jewish Federation and the Skirball Cultural Center.

“I’ve been to Israel half a dozen times. I’ve been all over the region. I’ve seen the innovation in energy. I’ve seen the innovation in water technology, and of course, California should partner with Israel to meet our own energy and water needs,” Swalwell, who represents a Bay Area district, said. “I will bring back as many values and technologies from Israel that can help Californians. That’s the job of the next governor.” 

Hilton praised the business relationship between California and Israel, and said “that foundation of prosperity and cooperation is how we build a stronger future for Israel and for us here in California.”

Villaraigosa also outlined his many past trips to Israel. “I’ve been to Israel half a dozen times, including the last time three years ago, when I wasn’t in office anymore. As governor of this state, I will work with the State of Israel,” he said. 

Mahan called California’s relationship with Israel “an important one for our country and for our state.” 

“In Silicon Valley,” he continued, “I’ve lost count of how many brilliant entrepreneurs [and] investors I’ve met from Israel who have brought incredible innovation to our state. And that exchange is something we need to continue to invest in.” 

Steyer, like the other Democrats on stage, drew a line between the Israeli people and the Israeli government. 

“Are we talking about the people of Israel? Or are you talking about the administration that runs the State of Israel? As far as I can tell, Mr. Netanyahu is quite a close confidant, ally and co-believer with our president. There’s nothing about our president, literally, that I agree with,” said Steyer. “How do I feel about the people of Israel, a scrappy group of people trying to build a country, build their families, build businesses? That’s a completely different question.” 

A recent Public Policy Institute of California poll showed a crowded, closely contested race, with five candidates neck-and-neck in the all-party primary, each with 10-14% of the vote. 

Hilton led the pack with 14%, followed by former Rep. Katie Porter (D-CA) with 13%, and then Republican Chad Bianco, sheriff of Riverside County, with 12%. Swalwell was at 11%, with Steyer at 10%. The top two finishers face off in the November general election.

A spokesperson for Porter told Jewish Insider she could not attend due to a scheduling conflict.

“Rep. Porter spoke to Jewish California last year about her vision to address the many issues facing California as Governor, including the increase in antisemitism, and she looks forward to continuing the conversation,” the spokesperson said.

A spokesperson for Bianco did not respond to a request for comment, but SF JCRC CEO Tyler Gregory told JI he also had a scheduling conflict. Democrat Xavier Becerra, the former secretary of Health and Human Services, also did not participate. 

All five candidates at the forum on Thursday said they oppose the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. Hilton and Mahan, citing the state’s anti-BDS law, said they would push back on efforts by municipalities to boycott or divest from Israel.

“They’re illegal. I will make sure that, as governor, my attorney general, sues these cities to stop them breaking the law,” said Hilton. 

“We should push against any attempt to unwind our prohibition of it,” Mahan said of the BDS movement.

Each of the candidates also criticized how public universities in the state responded to anti-Israel and antisemitic protesters during the spring 2024 encampments. 

“I’m a proud graduate of UCLA, but I’ll tell you something, I’ve never been so embarrassed and ashamed about what I saw happen on a UC campus, and as governor, we will not tolerate that,” Villaraigosa said. “The fact that it took so long to extricate these people that tried to intimidate people and wouldn’t allow them to go to class, wear their yarmulke, was absolutely unacceptable.” 

Mahan criticized a questionnaire from a union representing thousands of professors and lecturers in the California State University system that asked candidates last year to say they would refuse donations from AIPAC and JPAC.

“That tells you how bad it has gotten. As governor I will actively call that out,” said Mahan. “One of the most powerful things the governor has is the bully pulpit, and it’s important as governor to speak directly to that divisiveness and call it out and explain that it is wrong and that we will not tolerate it in our public institutions. We also have to talk about curriculum.” 

Steyer called freedom to protest “one of the hallmarks of higher education” in the U.S., but said “when protest moves into discriminating against other students, that’s when protest is no longer acceptable.” 

Swalwell recounted a recent conversation with a friend who said his daughter had taken some schools off her college list because of fears about antisemitism.

“A metric of success for me is that Jewish California students feel safe in every California university and college,” said Swalwell. “Yes, California and our colleges have always led some of the best movements in our history. However, that does not give you license to hate, discriminate, to commit violence.”

Hilton described visiting UCLA after the encampments to speak to Jewish students and called on the other candidates in the room to bring their messaging of fighting antisemitism to other audiences, not just Jewish ones.

“It’s still going on, this sense of fear and intimidation, and we’ve got to take a stronger stance,” Hilton said. “Our elected leaders in this state aren’t quite as clear on some of these issues, and give succor to the hate and the ideology that’s causing this fear among our Jewish population. So I would like them to speak with the same strength and clarity against this ideology everywhere, not just in this audience.” 

Other questions touched on immigration, homelessness, affordability and the impact of artificial intelligence. The state’s gubernatorial primary will take place on June 2, and the top two vote-getters, irrespective of party, will advance to the general election. 

Four progressive House candidates came together in the Chicago area on Tuesday to condemn reported pro-Israel spending in their districts, a sign of growing cross-district collaboration among candidates hostile to Israel as they seek to push back against pro-Israel interest groups.

The joint press conference included Evanston, Ill., Mayor Daniel Biss, state Sen. Robert Peters, activist Junaid Ahmed and union organizer Anthony Driver Jr. All four are endorsed by the Congressional Progressive Caucus PAC.

Driver’s attendance was particularly notable given that he has little public record on Israel policy issues. He’s running in the 7th Congressional District, where the AIPAC-linked United Democracy Project has spent $753,000 — and reportedly plans close to $3 million in spending — in support of Chicago Treasurer Melissa Conyears-Ervin. He was endorsed by the CPC on Tuesday.

“AIPAC is not your friend. … They are in the business of buying elections. They’re in the business of buying representation. They’re in the business of buying politicians,” Driver said. “Melissa Conyears-Ervin … is selling out our community.”

He added, addressing AIPAC directly: “You will lose, and when you do lose, may you never come back to this city again.”

Another anti-Israel candidate, Kina Collins, is also running for the seat.

“I was raised by a single mother on the West Side and I’m the full-time caretaker to my disabled sister who relies on SNAP and Medicaid. I’m going to fight for our communities in Washington because I know what Trump’s attacks have done to us,” Conyears-Ervin said in a statement to Jewish Insider. “I’m insulted that some of my opponents think a Black woman born and raised in this district would ever be anything but independent and fearless.”

The candidates broadly framed AIPAC as a pro-Trump, pro-Netanyahu group that is trying to buy the elections in their four districts, and suggested that accepting any funding from AIPAC affiliates will make lawmakers incapable of opposing the Trump administration.

Peters claimed that accepting support from the group means that candidates will be “a ‘yes man’ to Trump donors to commit unspeakable horrors in another part of the world,” activities in which he said AIPAC was directly involved.

Ahmed called the alleged AIPAC spending a “sinister plot” across all four races: “massive AIPAC spending designed to buy political power and silence the voices of the people. … [Former Democratic Rep.] Melissa Bean will look the other way as Israel commits a genocide. Melissa Bean will fight for the wealthy and the powerful and leave everyone else behind.”

Bean did not respond to a request for comment.

In the other districts — the 9th, 8th and 2nd — purported pro-Israel spending has come through newly created groups boosting three allied candidates: state Sen. Laura Fine, Bean and Cook County Commissioner Donna Miller.

Elect Chicago Women, the group backing Fine and Bean, has spent $1.26 million supporting Fine and $1.27 million supporting Bean thus far and Affordable Chicago Now, the group backing Miller, has spent $868,000.

In his race, Biss has been leaning aggressively into Israel and AIPAC-related attacks on Fine as a centerpiece of his campaign. 

The “red box” on Biss’ website — where candidates share messaging that they hope super PACs involved in the race will boost — lists as his top priority informing voters that Fine is “bankrolled by Trump donors, MAGA Republican donors, and AIPAC.”

“She will side with AIPAC on policies that starve children and will fund their war in Gaza with billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars,” the website states.

“This is further proof that professional political candidate Daniel Biss will say anything to get elected,” a Fine spokesperson responded to JI. “He said he’d serve his full term as mayor and broke his promise. He says he’ll protect Medicaid but voted to eliminate coverage for 25,000 working Illinois parents. He can’t run a campaign pitting his record against Laura Fine’s because he doesn’t have one. Laura stood up to the insurance industry, corporate polluters and the gun lobby — and won.”

At a recent candidate forum, video of which was obtained by JI, Biss repeatedly attacked Fine for receiving donations from AIPAC and Trump supporters and accused her of supporting a “blank check” for Israel. On one occasion when Biss repeated the attack line, loud groans and grumbling could be heard from members of the audience.

Fine has denied any knowledge of the funding behind the outside group backing her — an idea that Biss has declared is “not credible,” though super PACs are legally prohibited from coordinating with campaigns and the group’s donors have not been publicly disclosed — and said she would also like transparency on the issue.

Biss has also faced scrutiny for the more than $350,000 in outside spending supporting him from 314 Action Fund, a Democratic pro-science group — to which UDP donated funds in a 2024 Oregon primary race when they were backing the same candidate. Biss has dismissed the idea that there are similarities in the outside support both he and Fine are receiving as “preposterous.”

Outside of the pro-Israel spending, new outside spending by the cryptocurrency-aligned Fairshake super PAC is also shaking up the race. The group is set to spend at least $1 million against Peters and state Rep. LaShawn Ford, who’s running against Conyears-Ervin, Driver and others in the 7th Congressional District.

Leading the Future, a super PAC funded by OpenAI President Greg Brockman and his wife, Anna, and venture capitalist Ben Horowitz, co-founder of Andreessen Horowitz, has plans for a seven-figure ad spend supporting former Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL) in the 2nd District and Bean in the 8th.

Pro-Israel candidates and organizations showcased healthy financial hauls over the final three months of 2025, according to newly released fundraising reports. The strong totals were headlined by AIPAC’s United Democracy Project super PAC, which ended last year with an imposing $95.8 million on hand (up significantly from $40.7 million last cycle at this time), after raising $61.6 million in the final six months of 2025.

In many of the closely watched Democratic primaries pitting pro-Israel candidates against anti-Israel antagonists, both sides posted strong fundraising figures.

In Michigan’s hotly contested Senate race, Rep. Haley Stevens (D-MI) raised $2.1 million in the fourth quarter of 2025 and banked $3.05 million at the end of the year. Stevens, a stalwart ally of the state’s Jewish community, narrowly outraised physician Abdul El-Sayed ($1.8 million raised), who has made hostility to Israel central to his campaign, and state Sen. Mallory McMorrow ($1.7 million), who has tagged Israel’s war against Hamas as a genocide.

Stevens also has significantly more cash on hand ($3 million), aided by her time spent raising money in the House. Both McMorrow and El-Sayed have just under $2 million cash on hand.

In Illinois’ closely watched open 8th District race, former Rep. Melissa Bean (D-IL) showcased her fundraising skills to comfortably lead the crowded primary field, bringing in $772,000 in the fourth quarter. Bean, a pro-Israel moderate during her last stint in Congress, nearly doubled the fundraising haul of Junaid Ahmed, a leading anti-Israel challenger, who brought in $360,000. 

In the race to succeed retiring Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), pro-Israel state Sen. Laura Fine raised an impressive $1.2 million — three times her fundraising total in the previous quarter — and banked $1.4 million. Her haul outdistanced her two anti-Israel rivals: Evanston Mayor Daniel Biss (who raised $659,000 and banked $1.37 million) and social media influencer Kat Abughazaleh (who raised $1.1 million, but spent $1.4 million, leaving her with $811,000 cash on hand). 

In New York City’s top primary clash, Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY) outraised former New York City Comptroller Brad Lander in fundraising, bringing in $1.1 million to Lander’s $629,000. But Lander only entered the race in early December, a sign he could catch up to the congressman in fundraising if he keeps up the pace. (Goldman’s campaign told JI that he already raised $851,000 in January, suggesting his fundraising has already accelerated.)

In the Bronx, Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY) brought in a significant $519,000 in fourth-quarter contributions, and has a whopping $14.9 million cash on hand to spend as he faces several challengers running to the anti-Israel left in the primary.

In the crowded primary to succeed retiring Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), state Assemblyman Alex Bores has emerged as the early fundraising leader, bringing in $2.2 million and ending the year with $2 million. That’s more than three times the $672,000 that Nadler-endorsed state Assemblyman Micah Lasher raised, and a little under twice his cash on hand ($1.2 million). Meanwhile, social media influencer Jack Schlossberg, the Kennedy scion, tapped his fundraising networks to bring in $1.1 million.

Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY) was one of the top House fundraisers as he prepares for a tough reelection in a swing district, bringing in $1.28 million for the fourth quarter. His leading Democratic opponent, military veteran Cait Conley, announced she raised around $560,000 during the same period. Peter Chatzky, one of the few Democrats running as a harsh critic of Israel in the heavily Jewish district, poured in about $5 million of his own money into the race. And Beth Davidson, another Democratic candidate, raised $264,000 — a decline from previous quarters, as some party leaders have gotten behind Conley.

On the Senate side, a pair of far-left, anti-Israel candidates posted healthy hauls in their races against establishment-backed moderates. In Maine, oyster farmer Graham Platner brought in a notable $4.6 million in the quarter in his primary against Gov. Janet Mills, who raised a solid $2.7 million. And in Minnesota, Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan was outraised by moderate Rep. Angie Craig (D-MN) but still managed to bring in $1 million (compared to Craig’s $2 million).

The big Republican primary to watch is in Kentucky, where Navy SEAL Ed Gallrein, who has been endorsed by President Donald Trump, scored a massive fundraising haul against anti-Israel Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), bringing in over $1.2 million compared to the congressman’s $638,000 total. Massie still holds about twice as much cash on hand as his upstart challenger, banking $2.18 million to Gallrein’s $933,000.

It’s important to remember that, while fundraising totals are an important signal of a candidate’s viability, the strongest fundraisers aren’t always the most successful. And the fact that numerous far-left candidates are also raising big bucks — when in the recent past, they would have struggled to show viability — is a warning that holding mainstream views isn’t the automatic ticket to primary success it once was. 

Sergio Gor’s expected departure from a key role in the White House, where he has vetted thousands of candidates for political jobs as the influential leader of the Presidential Personnel Office, is raising some questions about how his litmus tests and isolationist views will compare to his newly announced replacement, particularly with regard to national security hires.

Gor, 38, was nominated by President Donald Trump last week to be U.S. ambassador to India. If confirmed by the Senate, Gor, who was also tapped as special envoy for South and Central Asian affairs, will leave behind a powerful post at which he built a reputation as an ideological gatekeeper. 

Throughout his time in the White House, Gor has drawn attention for his unyielding focus on loyalty to Trump and — more singularly — a fierce commitment to elevating national security and foreign policy hires who share his skepticism of American engagement abroad.

His successor, Dan Scavino, as the White House confirmed this week, is likewise a longtime Trump confidant who now serves as White House deputy chief of staff. But unlike Gor — whose background suggests an interest in imposing ideological litmus tests on job applicants  — Scavino, 49, “has no ideology other than Trump,” according to a former top administration official.

Even as Gor has won plaudits from a range of high-ranking officials in the administration, the former official, who spoke anonymously to address a sensitive subject, suggested his approach to the White House role has been driven by his foreign policy worldview as well as his allegiance to the president, a tension that is unlikely to be replicated by Scavino.

“Sergio brought his own world with him to the job, not just Trump’s,” the former official told Jewish Insider on Wednesday. “Loyal to Trump, yes — loyal to a Paul-Tucker-Koch world ideology, I think yes as well,” he added, referring to Gor’s former boss Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), podcast host Tucker Carlson and the activist network linked with Charles Koch, a leading conservative donor who has opposed Trump.

By contrast, Scavino, a former Trump golf club manager who has previously run the president’s prolific and unfiltered social media, seems to have few, if any, competing interests at stake. “There’s a reason Dan has a seat in the Situation Room when the toughest decisions are made,” the former Trump official elaborated. “Sergio never did. This should be a positive development for vetting and placement.”

It remains to be seen which positions Scavino will still need to help staff when he fully assumes Gor’s duties — especially with “over 95%” of departments and agencies now “filled,” according to a statement from Trump last week, which could not be verified.

“There is much still to be done, and Dan’s leadership will ensure the highest quality, most dedicated workforce ever,” Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said in a statement, calling Scavino “one of Trump’s most trusted and longest serving advisors.”

In his tenure, Gor, a former top aide to Paul, the libertarian Republican from Kentucky, has helped weaken the National Security Council and worked to install Pentagon officials who have pressed for a reduced U.S. military presence in the Middle East — fueling concerns among pro-Israel leaders who have questioned if such views were aligned with Trump’s approach.

The personnel chief, whose efforts highlighted an intra-party battle between warring traditional and MAGA Republican factions that has recently grown less fractious as the administration has taken shape, also promoted officials affiliated with the libertarian Koch network, in spite of a directive from Trump upon his reelection to avoid “people who worked with, or are endorsed by” the Charles Koch or his political advocacy group.

More recently, Gor has prominently clashed with some top Trump allies, including Elon Musk and Michael Anton, the State Department’s director of policy planning who served as a technical lead amid failed nuclear negotiations with Iran. Anton, who is now expected to leave the administration soon, has reportedly grown frustrated with Gor’s rejections of his proposed hires, among other sources of tension first detailed by Politico on Wednesday. 

“He has the power to can people and for them not to get through,” one Trump official who has interacted with Gor and was not authorized to comment on the record said of his current role.

Meanwhile, Gor has advanced some officials widely criticized for espousing racist and antisemitic views, including Darren Beattie, who was fired in Trump’s first term for speaking at a white nationalist event and is now a top official in the State Department.

Beattie’s promotion, along with others who have drawn scrutiny for extreme views, underscores how Gor has been “clearing people who are unclearable,” said a former senior Republican Hill aide, who was granted anonymity in order to speak freely. “Sergio is obviously fine with that,” he said of Beattie’s past comments.

Trump, who in a social media post announcing his nomination last week called Gor’s time in the White House “essential” to upholding the administration’s agenda, said the personnel director would remain in his current role until his confirmation in the Senate, which has not yet scheduled a hearing.

A White House spokesperson confirmed to JI on Wednesday that Gor will stay in his post pending Senate approval for the ambassadorial role, which comes amid growing tensions between the United States and India, a major ally, over Trump’s tariff threats.

As Gor now prepares to leave the White House for a more public role, Danielle Pletka, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, suggested his approach to hiring ultimately demonstrated how he struggled to evolve with the administration on key issues.

“I think that the Trump administration has settled into a routine, and I think that people who are very ideologically rigid are finding less and less space for themselves,” Pletka told JI. “The president is not an isolationist, and those who are are discovering quickly that he does not appreciate being told how his staff have a stronger America first agenda than he does.”

It’s notable that Democrats are still relying on experienced, brand-name candidates a bit past their political prime as top recruits for key Senate races. 

Former Sen. Sherrod Brown, now 72, is seeking a political comeback after losing his reelection bid last year in Ohio. Former North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper is pursuing a career change to the Senate at 68 years old. Maine Gov. Janet Mills is being recruited into the Senate race against Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) even though she’s 77.

To be sure, these are the strongest challengers Democrats could muster in these three must-win battleground states. All are popular statewide officials with a history of winning support from outside the party base. It’s hard to name any other Democratic candidate more capable of flipping these GOP-held seats than the aforementioned recruits. 

But there’s another more uncomfortable reality that is drawing the Democrats towards their stars of yesteryear. In today’s fractured media environment, it’s incredibly hard for a new face to emerge and get the type of publicity rising stars would generate from “earned media” on television and in the press, as was common in the recent past.  

And given the declining influence of such mainstream platforms, the best way to get attention is by playing to the party’s activist base on social media. It’s how Zohran Mamdani broke through a comparatively dull field of challengers in the New York City Democratic mayoral primary. Going viral is becoming a prerequisite in today’s politics, and the best way to go viral is to play to the extremes — or to, like California Gov. Gavin Newsom, emulate President Donald Trump’s online bullying and trolling.

If you don’t have name identification built up from a career in politics, it’s hard to register any other way these days. And it’s exceptionally hard to break through the noise if you’re a thoughtful moderate.

It’s why we’re seeing a slew of Democratic candidates popping up who are looking to capture the anti-establishment mood within the party amid the desire for a younger generation of leadership. At the same time, most of these change-focused candidates also hold political views that are well out of the mainstream. 

Take Democrat Graham Platner, the 40-year-old Maine oyster farmer and former bartender who is disrupting the party efforts to recruit Mills into the Senate race. He exudes authenticity, and is a political outsider who has never run for elective office before. But his support for government-run health care and apparent hostility towards Israel, to name a few issues, would certainly make it harder for him to win over the moderate-minded voters that Collins has easily secured in past elections.

That would be the case in any battleground state or district: Nominate a candidate who captures the imagination of the progressive base, and odds are they’ll be less electable in a general election. 

The 2020 Democratic presidential primary was a case study in this dynamic. There were a handful of talented center-left candidates running, like Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar or then-South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg. But given the party’s alarm about Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-VT) electability, only the universally known Joe Biden had the profile to become the mainstream standard-bearer, even though he was 77 at the time. 

At a certain point, the party’s bench of baby boomers will run out and the more progressive-minded Gen Zers will be stepping into political office. Whether this new generation can capture the public’s attention without being beholden to the ideological extremes will be one of the most consequential tests for the party’s future.

With the entry this week of Derek Dooley, a friend of Gov. Brian Kemp who hails from college football royalty in Georgia, the Republican field in the Georgia Senate race is taking shape.

Dooley, whose father coached the Georgia Bulldogs and who spent several years leading the rival Tennessee Volunteers, announced Monday that he’d be running against Reps. Buddy Carter (R-GA) and Mike Collins (R-GA) in the Republican primary to take on Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA), Republicans’ top-targeted incumbent.

Kemp, a popular Republican governor, was seen as Republicans’ best chance of ousting Ossoff. Some prominent Jewish former Ossoff donors in the state reached out to Kemp late last year urging him to run against Ossoff, frustrated by the senator’s votes last year to block some weapons transfers to Israel. But Kemp ultimately passed on the race. Ossoff has worked to rebuild trust with disaffected Jewish voters, but those efforts were hampered by his vote last week to block a shipment of assault weapons to Israel.

Kemp has family ties to Dooley, who has brought on top Kemp advisors, is likely to receive the governor’s backing and pursue a center-right lane in the race, while portraying himself as a political outsider. All the candidates have been making the pivotal pitch for President Donald Trump’s backing in the race and tying themselves closely to him, hoping that key endorsement will help them clear the field.

With Kemp’s help, Dooley could potentially peel off support from moderate Jewish Democrats still frustrated by Ossoff, though Jewish leaders in the state told Jewish Insider last week that they’re not yet making any commitments in the race. They say they’re waiting to see who emerges from the Republican primary and how Ossoff’s record shapes up over the coming months before they decide whether to support the incumbent next November.

Dooley, for his part, is wasting little time in courting their votes.

“I stand with our ally Israel and firmly believe they should have the necessary resources to defend themselves against terrorists,” Dooley said in a statement to JI. “While Jon Ossoff continues to vote against Israel and American national security interests, I will be a leading voice for a strong America and a strong Israel in the Senate.”

Emanuel Fialkow, a prominent conservative member of Georgia’s Jewish community, said that Kemp’s team connected him to Dooley and the two spoke at length on a variety of issues, including antisemitism and Israel. Fialkow said he was previously part of a group of Jewish donors who urged Kemp to run against Ossoff.

Fialkow said that Dooley had asked him about a range of issues including Israel policy, the war in Gaza and antisemitism, and that he subsequently agreed to help Dooley develop an Israel position paper, which Fialkow described as very strongly pro-Israel. He said that Dooley “will have a backbone” in support of Israel.

He subsequently organized a lunch meeting at his home to introduce Dooley to a small group of others in the state, many of them Jewish, including both traditional Republicans and Democrats. Fialkow said that the group discussed a range of issues and came away seeing Dooley as honest, humble, inspiring, engaging and curious to learn more. He praised Dooley as a proven leader and a “really good guy” who can speak to people from a range of backgrounds, and is interested in listening to and learning from people.

He said other Jewish leaders in the Atlanta area are also in discussions with and about supporting Dooley. Others said they haven’t been in touch with Dooley or his surrogates yet.

Fialkow said that he and some other Jewish leaders in the state see Ossoff’s relationship with them as broken beyond repair, and said they can’t trust him going forward to be a reliable supporter of Israel. He argued that Dooley is the “only chance” for Zionist voters who put support for Israel first. 

Ossoff, for his part, maintains some vocal supporters in the Jewish community.

Cary Levow, a supporter of pro-Israel causes and candidates, told JI last week, “I support Senator Ossoff and know of other Jewish Georgians who understand that Jon’s approach to the Gaza humanitarian issue is genuine.” 

“Senator Ossoff has voted for over $20 billion in aid to Israel, has family living in Israel and has spent a significant amount of time in the country,” Levow continued. “I think Jon has represented the Jewish community well and I have zero concern about a senator who is critical of how [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu] Bibi is waging this war.”

Fialkow argued that the only way for a Republican to win is for both Kemp and Trump to be aligned behind the same candidate, and that a hard-right Republican can’t win statewide in Georgia, meaning that Dooley gives Republicans their best chance to beat Ossoff.

Fialkow said he’s spoken to Collins and is confident that he would never vote against U.S. support for Israel, due to his own religious convictions. Collins has voiced the same view in confrontations with anti-Israel activists.

Speaking at an Oct. 7 memorial ceremony in 2024, Collins called the U.S. Israel’s “greatest friend” and said that the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attacks had only strengthened the relationship between the two partners. He said he would work to make sure Israel receives all the support it needs to defend itself.

“Hamas not only attacked the peaceful people of Israel that day, but they launched an assault against the idea of free and fair democracies in the Middle East,” Collins said.

But some elements of Collins’ record on antisemitism could raise red flags for others in the Jewish community. Last year, he refused to apologize for and doubled down on engaging with an antisemitic, racist Twitter account that was attacking a reporter for being Jewish. And he voted against the Antisemitism Awareness Act, and has a record of engaging in otherwise extremist rhetoric online. 

“Mike Collins has condemned the hate speech seen on college campuses and around the globe, and has been an ardent supporter of Israel in Congress. While Jon Ossoff capitulated to woke activists and voted to cut aid to Israel, Mike Collins has stood strong and protected its right to exist,” a Collins campaign spokesperson told JI, when asked about his online history and vote on the antisemitism bill.

Carter, who is close with some Atlanta-area Jewish leaders, has been a vocal supporter of pro-Israel and Jewish causes in the House, including leading pushes for funding and support for Holocaust education programs, calling on colleagues to address antisemitism in health care, leading legislation to support U.S.-Israel cooperative programs, urging support for the snapback of U.N. sanctions on Iran and calling for Qatar and Turkey to expel Hamas leaders. He also supported the Antisemitism Awareness Act, unlike Collins.

Carter’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

Other than Collins’ vote against the Antisemitism Awareness Act, both Carter and Collins have records of supporting legislation backing Israel and combating antisemitism, including voting for supplemental aid to Israel and a resolution describing anti-Zionism as antisemitic.

Donning their foreign policy hats, candidates in New York City’s hotly contested mayoral race were quick to weigh in as violence erupted between Israel and Hamas this week. “I stand proudly with Israel,” former Citigroup executive Ray McGuire pronounced Monday evening in a statement later echoed by Eric Adams, the Brooklyn borough president. Andrew Yang, the apparent frontrunner who has earned key endorsements from several Orthodox Jewish leaders, also made sure to signal his unwavering support for the Jewish state. “I’m standing with the people of Israel,” he said, condemning “the Hamas terrorists.”

The lone dissenting voice was Dianne Morales, the outspoken former nonprofit executive who, by varying degrees, has positioned herself to the left of every leading candidate in the crowded Democratic primary field. “Our world needs leaders who recognize humanity and the dignity of all lives,” Morales wrote on Twitter early Tuesday morning. “Whether in NYC, Colombia, Brazil or Israel-Palestine, state violence is wrong. Targeting civilians is wrong. Killing children is wrong. Full stop.”

With her statement, rhetorically limp by pro-Israel standards, Morales demonstrated that she is willing to stray from the pack on an issue where most mainstream Democratic candidates in New York, home to the largest Jewish population in the United States, are usually aligned. While the majority of her opponents identify as solidly pro-Israel, Morales has veered in the opposite direction.

During a private virtual event with Jewish high school students last December, for instance, Morales accused Israel of “apartheid” while describing a 2015 mission sponsored by the Jewish Community Relations Council of New York as “propaganda,” according to leaked audio obtained by The Forward. 

“I’ve been to Israel, and I participated in what would be considered a propaganda trip,” Morales said bluntly in the recording. “The country is beautiful, so I understand why everybody wants a piece of it. That being said, I believe that Israel is an apartheid state. I think that is highly problematic. I cannot advocate for equity and justice in New York City and turn a blind eye to the challenges around those issues in Israel and with the folks living in Gaza and in Palestine.”

Dianne Morales at a march for transgender rights. (Courtesy)

In a recent interview with Jewish Insider, however, Morales seemed hesitant to invoke the same feisty rhetoric. “The first thing that’s really important to say is that I really appreciate the opportunity to have taken that trip,” Morales said of her week-long excursion with the JCRC, which has been leading missions to Israel for more than two decades. “JCRC does really incredibly important work for the community of New Yorkers around leadership development and advocacy for the Jewish community, and I certainly look forward to continuing to support that work as mayor.”

But Morales admitted to harboring “really complicated feelings” about her visit. “I see myself as a champion for equal rights and protections under the law,” she said, without making mention of  “apartheid.” “I don’t think any child should be denied the right to a home or to their full potential and that everyone deserves to be free of state violence.” 

Even having softened her views somewhat, Morales’s public and private comments would almost certainly have come at a cost in previous mayoral races. Instead, it is Yang who has drawn intense feedback for his pro-Israel views. After his Monday night tweet, Yang found himself uninvited from a Ramadan event as pro-Palestinian activists disrupted a campaign stop in Queens. “Utterly shameful,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) said of Yang’s comments.

By Wednesday morning, Yang had clarified his initial statement, sending out a white flag of contrition to his 1.9 million Twitter followers. “I mourn for every Palestinian life taken before its time as I do for every Israeli,” he said in a lengthy statement. 

Adams, too, has faced some criticism for defending Israel in the conflict with Gaza. Earlier this week, the Muslim Action Network announced that it was pulling its endorsement of Adams, claiming he had “failed to take a principled stance.”

For her part, Morales appears to be gaining a modicum of momentum as she slipstreams behind New York’s ascendant far-left, which has carved out prominent footholds at the state and federal levels in recent years. “We’ve been defying all kinds of expectations and also bucking the traditions as to what criteria you need to have in order to be considered viable or a contender,” she told JI. “This campaign is, in fact, resonating with New Yorkers.”

That boast comes with some supporting evidence. Having lagged behind her opponents in most polls, Morales suddenly found herself in third place with 12% of the vote, just four points behind Adams, who topped the list, according to a survey commissioned by the Hotel Trade Council’s political arm and released earlier this week. Those numbers suggest that the June 22 Democratic primary remains in flux as underdog candidates like Morales and Kathryn Garcia, the city’s former sanitation chief who received a surprise endorsement from the The New York Times on Monday, show signs of life. 

Further scrambling the dynamics, Scott Stringer, the city comptroller and until recently the leading progressive candidate in the race, was rocked by allegations of sexual assault that have hobbled his once formidable campaign. Morales, who has called for Stringer to withdraw his name from the ballot, believes his embattled position has likely pushed some voters to her side as she notches new endorsements that would otherwise have gone his way. 

“I think it’s freed people up who might have felt indebted to him to feel like they can back me or support me or be louder about supporting me,” Morales said, while making sure to add that her grassroots campaign would be cresting with or without the scandal. “We’re just starting to surge,” she said. “The groundwork for that has been laid over the course of the last year.”

***

Morales, a resident of Bedford-Stuyvesant, announced her campaign last November with the hope of becoming New York’s first Afro-Latina mayor. A former employee in the city’s Department of Education, she served for a decade as the executive director and CEO of Phipps Neighborhoods, an affordable housing nonprofit in the Bronx, before seeking office as a first-time candidate. “I spent my entire career actually working on the ground,” said Morales, casting herself as a candidate of the people, “helping communities that have just been historically disenfranchised, underserved, marginalized.”

“She was the most believable, transparent candidate that I met,” said Harvey Epstein, a state assemblyman in Manhattan who endorsed Morales in March. “She had a plan that was achievable and she had a track record that proved she could get things done.”

The platform Morales puts forth is unapologetically progressive, including a municipal Green New Deal, a public bank for underserved New Yorkers and a plan to provide free college education through the city’s public university system.

“She is predictably consistent on the left side of the spectrum,” said David Bloomfield, a professor of education at Brooklyn College and the CUNY Graduate Center, “opposing screens in school admissions, looking toward a highly collaborative form of school governance that gives greater weight to community education councils and parents than most other candidates have indicated.”

Perhaps most notably, Morales is the only candidate in the race who wholeheartedly supports defunding the police. “I understand that the language of defunding is scary to some,” she acknowledged. “But what it really means is that we need to be investing in alternative services and supports for our community members.”

After a shooting in Times Square last weekend, most candidates struck a balance in their messaging on public safety, calling for robust policing while emphasizing a need for reform. But Morales rejects such rhetoric, notwithstanding a violent crime surge that has put many New Yorkers on edge as the city emerges from a destabilizing pandemic. “We’ve seen the escalation in violence despite the fact that there actually has been no real decrease in policing, despite the fact that Times Square is one of the most heavily surveilled communities in the city,” she argued. “I think that we have to debunk the idea that the police are actually creating safer communities.”

Morales advocates for a “multi-pronged” response amid an uptick in hate crimes against Jews and Asian-Americans. “I think antisemitism, anti-Asian violence, anti-Black violence, all of these things are rooted in white supremacy,” she said, while advocating for a humanistic approach to public education that embraces differences. “From a social perspective, I think we need to meet the needs of communities,” Morales continued. “I think the systems right now pit communities against each other and fosters this sort of us-them dynamic, and we need to actually counter that and really sort of lift up this perspective of solidarity and combating these things together.”

Dianne Morales at a rally for Breonna Taylor. (Courtesy)

“I truly believe that all communities that have been historically marginalized or oppressed or harmed deserve to be centered and prioritized moving forward, and to me, that includes the Jewish community,” Morales said, adding: “I understand the history of oppression and discrimination and exclusion and the fear that so often can instill in people. I’m committed to actually creating a safe city for all of us to coexist peacefully and with dignity.”

Morales’s message appears to be falling on receptive ears. Her coalition, she says, represents a diverse patchwork of New York City’s voting populace, including teachers, LGBTQ voters and Hispanic women. Unemployed workers, according to Morales, make up 30% of her donor base. Morales has also been buoyed by a passionate young fan base of volunteers as well as digitally savvy supporters who are enthusiastically promoting her campaign on social media.

Last month, Morales notched an endorsement from the Jewish Vote, the political arm of Jews for Racial and Economic Justice, whose 6,000 members live mostly in New York. “We want to make sure that the next New York City mayor is fighting to really transform New York City and fighting for people who are working-class and fighting for racial justice,” Sasha Kesler, who sits on the Jewish Vote’s steering committee, told JI in an interview. “Dianne fit the bill.”

“We want a mayor who takes a firm, principled stance against forms of state violence, militarism and abuse,” Kesler added, expressing her appreciation for Morales’s recent comment on the conflict between Israel and Gaza. “That’s what she said in her message.”

JFREJ says it remains neutral on the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, only opposing efforts to criminalize BDS on free speech grounds — and Morales echoed that view in conversation with JI.  “We should not create an environment that penalizes people’s right to organize and protest,” she said, adding: “That being said, that doesn’t mean I support hate or fear mongering or antisemitism. I don’t think that those two things are one and the same.”

Asked for her personal stance on the BDS movement — which is rejected by almost every mayoral candidate in the race as well as by a number of the most progressive candidates now running for public office across the country — Morales was noncommittal. “As a candidate and the mayor of New York City, it’s less important what I believe than what I’m going to uphold for New Yorkers,” she said. “I am going to uphold that it not be criminalized.”

Morales was equally hesitant to weigh in on a controversial questionnaire, distributed last summer by the New York City chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America, asking that City Council candidates pledge not to visit Israel. “I never actually saw the questionnaire,” she said. “But what I understood was that it was just poorly worded.”

Morales said she was open to visiting Israel again if she is elected —  something of a rite of passage for New York City mayors. Bill de Blasio, the outgoing two-term mayor, toured the Jewish state on a 48-hour trip in his second year in office. But Morales made clear that any future visit would likely be on her own terms. “I’m not opposed to visiting Israel,” she said. “I would want to do that independently rather than through any kind of sponsored trip because I think it’s important to being able to maintain my own sort of independence, judgment and decision-making.”

Ultimately, Morales was reluctant to discuss such issues in much depth, despite her apparent readiness to speak out on social media and in at least one private forum. “I don’t want to distract from the race that I am in,” she said. “If I had wanted to get mired in the international stuff, I’d probably run for a different thing.”

But while New York City mayors wield no direct influence over foreign policy, Morales may discover that the scope of the job is broader than she expects. 

“There was a time in New York City politics, years back, that if you ran for mayor you had to go immediately and visit the three ‘I’s: Italy, Ireland and Israel,” said Hank Sheinkopf, a veteran Democratic consultant in New York. “Now the ethnic population has shifted, so what’s left? Just one ‘I,’ and that’s Israel.”

On Tuesday, 16 candidates will battle to appear on the November ballot to fill an open seat in California’s 53rd congressional district. Rep. Susan Davis (D-CA), who has represented the San Diego-area district since 2001, announced in September that she would not seek reelection.

The candidates: Frontrunners include San Diego City Council President Georgette Gomez and Sara Jacobs — a former Hillary Clinton campaign aide and State Department contractor. Jacobs, who ran in the nearby 49th district in 2018, is the granddaughter of billionaire Qualcomm founder Irwin Jacobs. California’s “jungle primary” means that only the top two candidates — regardless of party — will advance to the general election.

What to expect on Tuesday: It’s “really a two-way race” between Jacobs and Gomez, Thad Kousser, a political science professor at the University of California San Diego, told Jewish Insider. “But right now [Gomez] looks like the underdog” to Jacobs, who has benefited from a large budget and name recognition from her previous run. A strong Republican challenger could capitalize on a split Democratic field to snag a general election spot, but the party has not united around one candidate, Kousser said, adding that Tuesday’s results will likely be a strong predictor of the general election.

Fundraising: Jacobs has raised more than $2 million — over $500,000 of it self-funded. Gomez comes in second, with over $660,000, followed by Marine veteran, activist and public policy consultant Janessa Goldbeck, who has raised approximately $248,500 — more than double what the next competitor has pulled in.

Jacobs’ Foggy Bottom experience: “I felt like it was important we had someone who’d had the experience that I’ve had making and implementing public policy at the federal level representing us,” Jacobs said in an interview with Jewish Insider. In Congress, Jacobs, a supporter of Medicare for All, said she would prioritize gun violence and lowering the high cost of living in San Diego.

Learning tikkun olam: “I was taught from a young age that it was my personal responsibility to do everything that I could to repair the world, and that’s really something that has informed and guided my career decisions,” Jacobs said.

When it comes to Israel: “I understand from a very personal level, the need for a safe and secure Israel and, personally, I think that the biggest threat to Israel’s security long term is the lack of a negotiated settlement,” Jacobs, who has family in the country and has visited on multiple occasions, told JI.

Gomez’s priorities: Gomez hopes to “go to D.C. to bring more money to our region so we can address some of the inequalities we’re facing,” she said at a recent candidate forum, listing housing and the climate crisis among her core issues.

Working toward peace: “Achieving a two-state solution, something I strongly support, means the U.S. playing a central role in working towards peace, safety, and self-determination for both peoples,” Gomez wrote in an op-ed for the San Diego Jewish World, which also addressed conditioning aid to the Jewish state. “Threatening to withold aid from Israel, or the Palestinian Authority… jeopardizes Israel’s ability to defend its security, promotes instability and extremism, and undermines U.S. credibility,” she said, adding that she opposes the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement.

Goldbeck’s candidacy: “I believe that San Diego deserves a representative in Washington who has a proven track record of getting things done on Capitol Hill, and has the courage to stand up to corruption and special interests in Washington,” Goldbeck told Jewish Insider. She’s prioritizing the climate, gun violence and healthcare — she prefers a “Medicare for All Who Want It” public option.

Shared values: In a statement to JI, Goldbeck praised Israel’s standing as a U.S. ally. “Israel is a beacon of shared interests and values in a critically strategic region,” Goldbeck said. “She embodies the American values of democracy, pluralism, and the rule of law.”