The AIPAC-linked United Democracy Project said in a statement Friday that it had anticipated the potential elevation of a far-left candidate who has accused Israel of genocide in New Jersey’s 11th Congressional District as a possible outcome of its spending against former Rep. Tom Malinowski (D-NJ), but indicated it may undertake further spending in the district.

The group spent $2.3 million attacking Malinowski over his support in 2019 for Immigration and Customs Enforcement Funding and stock trading while in Congress.

Though ballot-counting has not yet finished, progressive activist Analilia Mejia, who is well to the left of Malinowski on Israel issues, currently holds a narrow lead in the primary — an outcome that frustrated New Jersey Jewish leaders attribute at least in part to UDP’s attacks on Malinowski.

“The outcome in NJ-11 was an anticipated possibility, and our focus remains on who will serve the next full term in Congress,” UDP spokesperson Patrick Dorton said in a statement Friday. “UDP will be closely monitoring dozens of primary races, including the June NJ-11 primary, to help ensure pro-Israel candidates are elected to Congress.”

Thursday’s race was a special primary to fill the remainder of Gov. Mikie Sherrill’s term in the House, through January 2027. The winner will still face a general election against Republican Joe Hathaway, the mayor of Randolph, N.J. The progressive Mejia could be uniquely vulnerable in the general, though the district favors Democrats.

There will also be a second primary race in June, on which Dorton suggested that UDP is focused, for the next full term in the House.

Former Lt. Gov Tahesha Way, rumored to be AIPAC’s preferred candidate and endorsed by Democratic Majority for Israel, looks poised to finish in third, with around 17%, in Thursday’s special election primary.

Mejia, who would likely win with less than 30% of the vote, could be vulnerable in the June primary if moderate voters — split amongst Malinowski, Way and Essex County Commissioner Brendan Gill in Thursday’s race — coalesce behind Way in the June regular primary.

Way and Malinowski did not immediately respond to requests for comment on whether they plan to run in June. Gill’s team confirmed that he does not plan to run. 

Far-left Twitch streamer and political commentator Hasan Piker, appearing at the Web Summit conference in Doha on Tuesday, alleged that Israel’s conduct played a meaningful role in the Oct. 7, 2023 Hamas terrorist attacks, continuing his long-standing pattern of hateful rhetoric targeting Israel and the Jewish people. 

“What I care about is maintaining my editorial independence and speaking truth to power, and the example I always go back to is in the aftermath of Oct. 7,” Piker said to a packed room. “People were not ready, especially in Western audiences, for someone to say that Israel played a significant role in how Oct. 7 took place.”

Speaking at an event labeled “Defending truth in a post-truth world,” Piker noted that he had lost viewers at the time over his extremist statements, but said he “stuck to [his] guns” and did not tone down his commentary. 

“A lot of people were understandably horrified by the images that they were seeing on their screens, and they said, ‘This is not for me. I’ve enjoyed your commentary up until this point.’ And they left,” said Piker. “If I cared about viewership, I would have stopped right then and there, and maybe even reconfigured my commentary.”

“But I didn’t do that,” Piker added. “I knew what the truth was, and I kept covering what was going on in Gaza every single day for two years, and eventually the audience came back.” 

Piker has previously argued that Hamas’ actions on Oct. 7 were a form of “resisting,” referred to Orthodox Jews as “inbred” and Zionists as Nazis and has praised former Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah as a “pretty brilliant person.” Piker has also described the conflict in Gaza as a “livestreamed Holocaust.” 

The streamer has faced several bans from Twitch over his commentary, most recently on Jan. 29, when his account was taken offline after he alleged that Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers were targeting anti-Israel protesters. He also referred to critics as “rabid ultra-Zionist pigs.” 

In response, Piker posted a statement on X listing what he alleged are permissible phrases for use on Twitch, but singled out that “you CANNOT say zionist pig.” 

“The ADL, which is an arm of Israel’s suppression in the west that works with law enforcement & does espionage has made it a bannable offense,” Piker wrote. 

In his richly reported new book, Hated by All the Right People: Tucker Carlson and the Unraveling of the Conservative Mind, Jason Zengerle tracks the evolution of the mainstream conservative journalist for The Weekly Standard, CNN and FOX News into a prominent figure in the far-right media ecosystem whose commentary increasingly descends into open antisemitism.

Zengerle, a veteran political reporter, ruminates over Carlson’s troubling transition from magazine writer to cable news pundit to his current position as a widely followed podcast host whose credulous interviews with Nazi sympathizers and Holocaust deniers, among others, have done little to dampen his influence in the MAGA movement he helped build.

In a recent interview with Jewish Insider, Zengerle, whose book will be published Tuesday, warned that Carlson’s efforts to smuggle antisemitic views into mainstream discourse should not be taken lightly.

“Tucker has credibility, and he comes across as a credible person,” Zengerle said. “That he’s giving voice to these really pretty fringe and dangerous sentiments is not to be underestimated, because people trust him.”

Whether Carlson personally believes the “awful things” he promotes, Zengerle writes in his book, “matters less than that he says them at all, and that millions of people — members of Congress, titans of industry, the president and just everyday Americans — listen to and take their cues from him.”

“What matters is that by saying these things, Carlson has finally achieved the fame, power and influence that for so long eluded him,” he adds.

Zengerle, 52, was recently hired as a staff writer for The New Yorker, and has previously contributed to The New York Times Magazine, GQ and The New Republic, among other publications. His book on Carlson is his first.

Speaking with JI last week, Zengerle discussed Carlson’s professional ascent, his motivations for demonizing Israel and why conservative Jews are so frightened by his potential role in shaping the future direction of the Republican Party after President Donald Trump leaves office, among other topics.

The conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.

Jewish Insider: This book has been in the works for a while. How did the idea initially come about?

Jason Zengerle: It’s been a bit of a roller coaster. The initial idea sort of came from a conversation I was having with my agent about a book I didn’t want to write, about the Republican civil war that was about to unfold. This is not long after [the] Jan. 6 [2021 Capitol riot]. The people who are going to be vying to inherit Trump supporters, because Trump was obviously a finished product, would never be coming back. And I was sort of talking to my agent about the various characters, and explaining why I didn’t think, no matter how many positions [Sens.] Josh Hawley (R-MO) or Ted Cruz (R-TX) or Tom Cotton (R-AR) took that would seem to appeal to Trump’s base, there was no way they’re ever going to inherit those voters, because they just lacked the charisma and entertainment value that Trump obviously has. 

Offhandedly, I said something like, ‘You know, the only guy who really can do that is Tucker Carlson.’ That was the genesis of the idea. Then, obviously, when I started the book, Tucker was at the height of his powers. He had the highest-rated show on Fox. Trump had kind of exited the stage. And Tucker, in a lot of ways, had sort of replaced Trump, just in terms of the headspace he was occupying among both liberals and conservatives. You had this weird Tucker economy of liberal journalists and people on Twitter who would clip his show, sort of like outrage bait.

For the first couple years I was working on the book, Tucker was sort of occupying that space. And then he got fired from Fox, and everyone was predicting that he would basically suffer the same fate all Fox stars suffer when they leave Fox, which is irrelevance. Like, who thinks about Bill O’Reilly these days, right? But I thought that wasn’t going to happen. I thought Tucker was going to stay in the picture. That might have been some motivated self-reasoning on my part, because I wanted the book to be relevant. My original publisher definitely thought he was going to fade away because they canceled my contract. 

JI: It certainly seems you were right in suspecting that he would continue to be not only relevant, but extremely influential during the campaign and in influencing hiring decisions for key roles in the Trump administration, as you detail in the book. He’s had a circuitous and occasionally rocky career from print journalism to cable news and now to an independent podcast. How do you view his evolution? Is there a moment where you see a clear turning point toward the type of demagogic commentator he would become, or do you think it was more gradual?

JZ: I think there are definitely inflection points in his career, and you can point to a number of them. I think one was certainly the war in Iraq. I think that had a pretty profound impact on his thinking. You know, I think he harbored some private doubts about the wisdom of going to war there, but was not really comfortable expressing them publicly, for a couple of reasons. Today, he talks a lot about how Bill Kristol and all these guys kind of misled him, and that’s why he hates them so much. At the same time, his best friend and now business partner was Neil Patel, who was working for Scooter Libby [chief of staff to former Vice President Dick Cheney]. And if you want to look at the disinformation that was put out into the world that supported going into Iraq, that was coming from Dick Cheney’s office. And I think Neil played a role in that. The fact that his best friend was sort of making the case for war, I think, made it difficult for him to oppose it. Two, the job he had at CNN at the time, on “Crossfire,” was to represent the right and the Bush administration — so just from a practical standpoint, he had to kind of support the war.

But anyway, the fact that things went so badly for Tucker at CNN, I think, made him reexamine a number of his priors and a lot of his time in his early career, when he was at The Weekly Standard and even after he had started writing for Talk and Esquire. There was such an effort among people like Kristol to excommunicate Pat Buchanan from the conservative movement. I think what happened with Iraq made Tucker reconsider Buchanan a bit, and he sort of saw that, ‘OK, well, I actually think this guy was right about foreign policy, and maybe he’s right about some other stuff as well.’ I think that led him to become much more hawkish on immigration. 

I think that what happened with Jon Stewart and CNN was a pretty big inflection point in the sense that the public humiliation he suffered, obviously, was difficult for him. But I also think he felt that his friends in the elite D.C. political and media circles didn’t come to his aid the way he would have liked. That started to breed a certain resentment he felt toward them that really grew as his career limped along. It made it a lot easier for him, when Trump came on the stage and started attacking the swamp and D.C. elites, to join in on those attacks, because I think he still nursed a grudge. So you can see things gradually, but you can also point to these crossroads moments, as well.

JI: You write that, while you didn’t know Carlson well, he often served as an “eager interview” subject and source for your stories over the years. Still, he didn’t agree to any interviews for your book. Why do you think that was?

JZ: I think it really is that Robert Novak expression: “a source, not a target.” I think he plays that game.

JI: There’s an interesting recollection in the prologue about your occasional interactions with Carlson when he would stop by the New Republic offices back in the late ’90s during your time as an intern there. You describe him then as a “hotshot young writer for The Weekly Standard,” and say he “seemed so much older, wiser and worldlier than we were.”

JZ: Maybe it didn’t take much to impress me. But the thing about him back then — and the thing I think others admired about him and looked up to him for — was that he was really courageous. The targets he picked, whether it was Grover Norquist or George W. Bush — it took guts to do that as a conservative journalist, and that was admirable.

JI: You write in the book that Carlson has “come a long way from the days when he described himself as a pro-Israel, Episcopalian neocon.” On his show now, he regularly promotes antisemitic tropes and conspiracy theories, incessantly attacks Israel and hosts neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers for friendly interviews. Do you have insight into what sparked this openly antisemitic streak?

JZ: It’s funny, someone who’s close to him was telling me that they thought this basically started with his conclusion that all the people who were opposed to him and Trump, post-2016, were big Israel supporters. So Tucker’s like, ‘Alright, I’m just going to piss these people off by going after Israel,’ and that’s kind of where it started. I don’t know if that’s the case. 

I mean, Bill Kristol looms so large in his mind and in his own story. The story that he tells people, and the story I think he tells himself, is he was misled and used and kind of exploited by the neocons, that he was this young, naive, innocent writer who got just basically used to get us into a war and support free trade deals and do all these things that hurt the white working class in America, and that what he’s doing now is his penance. And I think that’s not a true story. I don’t think that’s what happened. 

Kristol is just such a huge figure in his own mythology. Even before Tucker went in this direction, he was really close to Kristol. He really looked up to him. He was his first boss, and I think he had a real impact on Tucker’s career. But now, Tucker wants that all to be a negative impact. He did an interview recently with his brother, Buckley Carlson, where he talked about how Kristol hates Christians. Bill Kristol, who hired Fred Barnes and took vacations with Gary Bauer. He’s recast all this stuff.

JI: Do you think Carlson’s hostility toward Israel and descent into nakedly antisemitic vitriol, such as when he called Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky “ratlike” and “a persecutor of Christians,” is motivated by more than just resentment of those he believes have spurned him? There’s been a lot of attention recently about a generational turn away from Israel on the right, which raises a question of whether he’s opportunistically tapping into that or directly influencing it.

JZ: I guess it’s both. I do think he’s making the calculation that that is where the energy is, and therefore he wants to make sure he stays out in front of it. He has a very good political radar and good professional radar. I think the Nick Fuentes episode was him recognizing he was in this feud with this guy, and he was losing, and him sort of deciding you cannot be successful in conservative media or conservative politics these days unless you have the support of these neo-Nazis. Unfortunately, it’s not going to work for you, and so he needed to get back on their good side. I think that’s part of the calculus. 

At the same time, I think he is influencing some of these people, maybe not the hardcore Nick Fuentes supporters, but young conservatives who, you look at what happened or what’s happening in Gaza and had questions and qualms and concerns. And then Tucker is out there — and Fuentes is out there as well — making the argument about how Gaza is wrong, but taking it so much further than that, and going into these really ugly corners of anti-Israel sentiment and taking them to those places. 

Now, I don’t want to get too far afield here, but that JD Vance talk at Ole Miss, where the frat boy asked that question about Israel persecuting Christians — that was a real light bulb moment for me. That this stuff had penetrated that deep that you have this guy who appears to be your regular old SEC frat boy saying this stuff. And I think Tucker is responsible for a lot of that, because that’s something he did at Fox, and he continues to do. He’s really good at taking ideas and arguments and even just stories from extreme, far-right fringy areas, often on the internet, and smuggling them into the mainstream. I think he’s doing that with the Israel stuff and with the Jewish stuff.

JI: His interview in 2024 with Darryl Cooper, the self-proclaimed podcast historian and Holocaust revisionist who has described Winston Churchill as the “chief villain” of World War II, seems an early instance of that effort.

JZ: That’s a perfect example. You have to be really steeped in this stuff to see what this individual is saying and doing and the rhetorical tricks they’re playing. Tucker just brings and vouches for these people, and I think that’s pretty dangerous. Tucker has credibility, and he comes across as a credible person. The fact that he’s giving voice to these really pretty fringe and dangerous sentiments is not to be underestimated, because people trust him, and it validates them.

JI: There’s been some intermittent speculation about whether Carlson will run for president. Do you have any thoughts on that? 

JZ: I don’t think he just wants to be a podcaster. I don’t think that’s his goal here. I think he has a real vision for what he wants this country to be, and he wants to achieve that vision, and if it turned out that running for office was the way to do that, I could see him doing it. I don’t think it’d be his first choice. I think right now, he has a nice, nice setup where he obviously has a president who listens to him. Maybe even more importantly, he has a vice president who I think he’s even closer to and more in alignment with. Just sort of thinking through the steps, as long as he thinks JD Vance and he are on the same page ideologically, and as long as he thinks JD Vance is capable of being elected president, that he has the political talent to pull that off, I can’t imagine him doing anything on his own. 

But if one of those two things changes, and I think it’s quite possible that the latter becomes a sticking point — if Tucker at some point were to conclude that JD Vance actually isn’t capable of being elected president and that his his ideological project is in jeopardy — I could certainly see him taking a shot at it. The way you would run for president now, it’s so different from how you had to do it before. He could probably do a lot of it from his podcast studio. But I think what’s more important is just understanding why he would do it, which is sort of the bigger point. He really does have a project he’s working on, and I think he’ll do what he thinks is necessary in order to bring that project to fruition.

JI: How would you characterize that project? 

JZ: He wants the United States to look like it did in the 1950s. I think he’s very much in alignment with Stephen Miller. Beyond the immigration stuff and us being a much whiter country, I think he wants to return to traditional gender roles.

JI: While some Republican lawmakers have spoken out against Carlson, it seems notable that Trump and Vance have both so far refrained from explicitly distancing themselves from him.

JZ: There’s this weird thing going on where certain Jewish conservatives feel like, as long as Trump’s there, everything’s going to be fine. You know, his grandchildren are Jewish, he might say some stuff, he might do some things, but at the end of the day, the worst-case scenario will never occur. They view Tucker as this bad influence on Vance, and if they can just get rid of the bad influence, Vance will be OK. But they’re really terrified of Tucker. They’re really terrified of what comes after Trump. And they’re terrified that Tucker will have a major influence on whatever comes after Trump. They’re worried about the influence he has on Vance. They want to believe that Vance would be OK, left to his own devices. They think Tucker is leading him in a bad direction, and therefore they need to take out Tucker.

I think it goes beyond Israel. I think it’s genuine fear about what it would mean to be Jewish in the United States. I’ve been talking to some of these folks recently. I think it’s a real, deep-seated fear about, in Tucker Carlson’s America, what would it be like to be Jewish here?

Hasan Piker, a popular far-left influencer, has long withstood scrutiny for his antisemitic commentary and justification of Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attacks, continuing to boast millions of loyal followers while hosting prominent Democratic elected officials on his Twitch show.

But his recent remarks unequivocally siding with Hamas provide particularly clarifying insight into Piker’s extreme worldview, raising questions about the permission structure in the broader progressive movement that tolerates such views with little to no pushback.

In a social media post last week, Piker came to the defense of anti-Israel protesters who had explicitly expressed support for Hamas while demonstrating outside a synagogue in Queens that was hosting an event promoting Israeli real estate investment.

“Hamas is a thousand times better than the fascist settler colonial apartheid state and the real harm happening here is that another illegal stolen land sale is taking place at another synagogue!” he said on X, describing himself as “a lesser evil voter” who was simply repeating a “harm reductionist credo.”

While the protest drew belated criticism from progressive Israel critics such as New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), both of whom have appeared on Piker’s show, the streamer made clear he was not backing down.

In contrast with Ocasio-Cortez, who had accused the protesters of using “disgusting and antisemitic” language while targeting a “predominantly Jewish neighborhood,” Piker issued a defiant retort to his 1.6 million X followers. “‘Hamas is resisting against Israel because they’re antisemitic’ is the funniest lie people tell themselves,” he argued. “If Israel was a Christian nation managing the apartheid and ethnic cleansing they’d still fight. You’re just mad people are fighting back at all.”

“‘Can’t believe people are saying they support Hamas!’” Piker wrote in a separate post, feigning shock at the protesters’ chants. “Wait till you hear how you can openly support the IDF and Israel and still rub shoulders in polite society in spite of the livestreamed Holocaust we all witnessed,” he said. “We need to stop playing these games in 2026.”

Piker’s critics, however, often wonder how the controversial commentator has continued to thrive in the modern progressive movement in spite of his long record of antisemitic remarks. In addition to calling Orthodox Jews “inbred” and comparing Zionists to Nazis, Piker has forcefully denied some of Hamas’ atrocities, such as widespread reports of sexual violence, which he has dismissed as “rape fantasies” and “hallucinations.”

His new and unvarnished comments about Hamas helped lay bare his sympathetic views on the terror group — even as he has echoed such sentiments in previous remarks. “There’s no comparison between Israel and Hamas,” he said last May in one notable X post. “One is a militant resistance comprised of orphaned soldiers born into a 77 year occupation, the other is a ethnoreligious supremacist apartheid state w nukes doing a genocide backed by the USA!”

Though his views have stirred some controversy, Piker’s stature in progressive circles and beyond remains solid. He has drawn favorable profiles in mainstream media outlets that make little mention of his offensive statements. And he has received invitations to appear at such high-profile events as The New Yorker Festival and platforms including the “Pod Save America” podcast, hosted by a group of former Obama administration officials who have become influential voices on the left.

Meanwhile, Piker has attracted a range of leading progressive lawmakers to sit for interviews on his show — from Reps. Ro Khanna (D-CA) and Ilhan Omar (D-MN) to Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Ed Markey (D-MA).

With the exception of Khanna, none of those lawmakers responded to requests for comment about Piker’s latest posts on Hamas, nor did the “Pod Save America” hosts, including Jon Lovett, Jon Favreau, Dan Pfeiffer and Tommy Vietor.

“I have called Hamas a terrorist organization and strongly believe they have no place in the future of Gaza or a Palestinian state,” Khanna said in a brief text message to Jewish Insider on Wednesday, but he did not directly address Piker’s comments when pressed.

Jeremiah Johnson, the co-founder of the Center for New Liberalism who has written critically on Piker’s radicalism and expressed concerns about his rising popularity in progressive politics, speculated that “a lot of Democrats boosting” the Twitch commentator “aren’t even aware of how extreme he is, because he lies constantly.”

“In interviews, podcast appearances or events he will play the ‘I’m just a guy who wants people to have healthcare’ card,” Johnson explained to JI on Wednesday. “If confronted he’ll downplay, deny or walk back extremist comments he’s made. And then he’ll go back to his own audience and keep praising Hamas or the Houthis or the CCP, or mocking Iranian protesters with racist voices.”

Johnson also pointed to an issue with what he termed “the Democratic staffer class, where the median Democratic staffer is so progressive they have a ‘no punching left’ rule — especially when someone like Hasan is attractive and has a large audience.”

As Piker’s ideology remains largely unchecked by progressive lawmakers and activists, other critics warn that the left’s acquiescence to his troubling views has already hurt its ability to meaningfully counter growing hostility to Jews and Israel from the far right.

“Hasan Piker is the Tucker Carlson of the progressive left, just dumber and better looking,” Jamie Kirchick, an author and commentator who frequently writes about Israel and Jewish issues, told JI. “As long as figures like Khanna, Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez and Markey pal around with him, they forfeit any credibility attacking the New Right’s vile antisemitism.”

While the Democratic Party’s far-left wing has gained ground in New York City — an ascendance reflected in Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani’s victory — in the moderate-minded suburbs outside of the city, Democrats are reeling from the party’s embrace of its radical elements.

To that end, moderate Democrats are stepping up in key races, aggressively distancing themselves from the far-left wing of the party — and hoping the taint doesn’t affect the party’s brand at large heading into next year’s midterm elections. 

Rory Lancman, a civil rights attorney and former state assemblyman, is one of those moderate candidates looking to showcase the other side of the Democratic Party. He launched an exploratory committee on Monday in a heavily Jewish state Senate district in Long Island, which is currently held by Republican state Sen. Jack Martins.

“The Democratic brand has been severely damaged by Mamdani and others, particularly [for] those Democrats like myself who are deeply committed to the safety and security of Israel, and deeply committed to the safety and security of the American Jewish community — whether it’s in our synagogues or on college campuses,” Lancman told Jewish Insider. 

Lancman, 56, previously served as a member of the New York State Assembly, representing the 25th District in Queens from 2007 to 2013. He then served in the New York City Council from 2014 until 2020, where he was among the sponsors of a resolution condemning the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement targeting Israel. 

Currently, he serves as director of corporate initiatives and senior counsel at the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, where he oversees lawsuits alleging antisemitism in the workplace, in labor unions and on college campuses. 

Lancman’s interest in returning to the political arena is driven by a desire to counter “the kind of anti-Israel agenda that Mamdani has committed himself to,” he told JI, referring to the incoming mayor’s hostile views about Israel, including his refusal to denounce the phrase “globalize the intifada” and pledge to discontinue the New York City-Israel Economic Council, a new joint initiative between the two governments aimed at building economic ties. 

“There’s a lot the state legislature could do,” Lancman continued. “It’s important for New York state to adopt the definition of antisemitism that is clear to be applied in circumstances all across the state, that’s the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition which many states have adopted. It’s hard to solve a problem if you lack a basic definition of what that problem is.” (The definition is recognized and used by specific local governments, state entities and institutions within New York, but has not been universally adopted by the state.)  

Lancman also called for reform to New York anti-discrimination laws “to make it easier for Jewish students to bring claims of discrimination under state law and to make it easier for Jewish businesses experiencing BDS to bring claims under state law.”

“We need to protect our houses of worship by adopting a New York State version of the Federal Faith Act, which is a law that can be strengthened and made useful in New York,” said Lancman. “I would like to see New York state explicitly prohibit any film production company that is engaged in BDS from being eligible for a New York state film tax credit.” 

“We need to take real steps to protect our houses of worship and protect us from violence on the street. All of these tools are the ones I’ve used in the last two years [at the Brandeis Center] to protect Jews who have experienced antisemitism.”  

For example, he’d like to see New York’s longstanding anti-mask laws, which were abolished during the COVID pandemic, reinstated. “If someone is walking around in a protest and covering their face, whether it’s with a white hood or a keffiyeh, it’s probably because they’re up to no good. We had a mask law in New York for decades and everyone understood its value.”

“We need to protect our houses of worship by adopting a New York State version of the Federal Faith Act, which is a law that can be strengthened and made useful in New York,” continued Lancman. “I would like to see New York state explicitly prohibit any film production company that is engaged in BDS from being eligible for a New York state film tax credit.” 

Identifying himself as a centrist, Lancman said he is well-placed to earn the trust of Democratic voters, many of whom cite their primary issue as the high cost of living in Nassau County. Like many Democrats, Lancman is “disturbed by things coming out of Washington,” but also has a “lingering mistrust about whether the Democratic Party is committed to defending Jewish life in this country.” 

The state Democratic Party chair, Jay Jacobs, who has spoken out against Mamdani, backed Lancman’s effort to flip the seat, saying earlier this week that “Rory’s lifetime of service to New York and record of delivering for Long Islanders would make him an excellent candidate, and we’re enthusiastic at the prospect of him running.” 

Martins’ office did not respond to multiple requests for comment from JI. While representing Nassau County’s District 7, which has a sizable Jewish community, Martins has advocated for increased security funding for Jewish (and other nonpublic) schools through the Nonpublic School Safety Equipment Grant. In February 2023, the NYS Senate Republican Conference appointed him to chair the Antisemitism Working Group, which produced a report on the rise of antisemitism in 2024.

The campaign arm of the state Senate Republicans called Lancman the product of “extreme City Council policies that drove up costs.”

“We can’t sacrifice one of our two major political parties to the antisemitic leadership and agenda, that would be catastrophic for the Jewish community in the United States and I refuse to surrender my party to the Zohran Mamdanis of the world,” said Lancman.

“My record, my consistent views, my outspoken opposition to Mamdani, will earn people’s trust on the issue of Israel and combating antisemitism,” Lancman told JI. “From there, we can talk about the things that clearly favor Democrats, which are making life more affordable from property taxes to energy costs, those are our issues. In a district like this though, a Democrat has got to establish a real connection and trust on defending Jewish life in this country.”  

In the state Assembly, Lancman said he would draw on a mantra he’s adopted from his time at the Brandeis Center: “That civil rights laws also protect Jews and that those laws need to be exercised to their fullest and need to be expanded and made robust as possible to address the antisemitic threats we are experiencing at this moment in time,” he said. 

“We can’t sacrifice one of our two major political parties to the antisemitic leadership and agenda, that would be catastrophic for the Jewish community in the United States and I refuse to surrender my party to the Zohran Mamdanis of the world,” continued Lancman. “Being able to convert one’s beliefs and point of view into actual legislation and policy, and have an effect on protecting Jews, is not easy. The job is not just proclamation. The job is making people’s lives better, and in the case of the Jewish community, it is quite literally protecting our place in this country.”

“I confess to being disappointed that Democrats aren’t making a bright line litmus test out of whether someone supports the existence of the Jewish state,” said Lancman, adding that his work at Brandeis Center since the Oct. 7, 2023 terrorist attacks has “reinforced” the belief that “anti-Zionism is antisemitism and that if you hate the Jewish state, you hate the Jewish people.” 

“We see that played out every day in this country and around the world. We cannot let that ideology take hold in the Democratic party, and I’m committed to defeating anti-Zionism and antisemitism in the Democratic party. You don’t need to bend the knee to antisemitism or socialism to be a Democrat.”

A senior State Department official and two GOP members of Congress met Friday with members of Germany’s far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, which has long faced accusations of extremism and pro-Nazi sympathies.

The State Department meeting is in line with the recently released National Security Strategy, which stated that it would be U.S. policy to boost anti-European Union and anti-immigration parties in the European Union.

“My exchange with Under Secretary [of State for Public Diplomacy] Sarah Rogers on the new national security strategy of the Trump Administration has made it clear that Washington is seeking a strong German partner who is willing to take on responsibility,” Bundestag member Markus Frohnmaier posted after the meeting, according to an X translation.

“Germany should act once again as a capable leading power by making a consistent turn in migration policy and independently organizing European security, in order to strengthen the German-American partnership on an equal footing. Only if we do our homework will we secure our relevance on the international stage. To shape this path together, I would like to organize a deepening event in Berlin in February 2026.”

Responding to a critic who noted that leaked Russian documents allegedly described Frohnmaier as a Russian asset, Rogers praised the AfD.

“Unlike the Russian government (and the current German one), AfD took an anti-censorship stance in its meeting with me last week. One reason they’re gaining popularity in Germany,” Rogers said.

She also reposted an X post from Special Envoy Ric Grenell, who said that those criticizing the meeting “don’t understand tough diplomacy.”

“Talking is a tactic. We are tired of failed diplomacy where you don’t talk to people and think it’s a punishment. Your guy [former President] Joe Biden didn’t talk to [Russian President Vladimir] Putin for 4 years while a war raged,” Grenell said. “Our side isn’t afraid to talk, and send clear directives as to what we expect. Your silence is weakness. You are so afraid to defend your ideas — and I get it. Your ideas have failed. The German is an official member of the Bundestag and Sarah’s job is to talk and explain our National Security Strategy.”

U.S. officials have met repeatedly with AfD members during the past year.

On Capitol Hill, Reps. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) and Tim Burchett (R-TN) met with the AfD delegation, at Luna’s invitation. They did not share details about that meeting. Luna has met previously with AfD members earlier this year and publicly offered to host them on Capitol Hill.

Luna said last week that she and other lawmakers would be meeting with “dozens of members” of the AfD.

“The Chancellor of Germany is trashing our President and censoring German citizens,” Luna said on X. “The AfD, whom the German uniparty has tried to smear, intimidate, and even de-bank, is actually working to strengthen ties with the United States and restore a healthy relationship between our governments.”

The Florida congresswoman has also recently faced criticism for her dealings with the Russian ambassador in Washington, advocating for restoring U.S.-Russian ties and accepting a dossier of alleged Russian findings on the John F. Kennedy Jr. assassination.

“Rep. Luna’s decision to roll out the red carpet for members of a far-right, Holocaust revisionist, Putin-loving party is grotesque,” said Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY), a co-chair of the bipartisan House antisemitism task force, said ahead of the meeting. In a separate post, he described the AfD members as “neo-Nazis.”

The New York Young Republican club also hosted around 20 members of the AfD at a gala last week.

“Young Republicans in New York are set to honor a Nazi sympathizing extremist,” the Jewish Democratic Council of America said, in response to the Young Republicans event. “This isn’t happening in a vacuum: [Secretary of State Marco] Rubio, [Vice President JD] Vance, and [Elon] Musk have all defended the extremist AfD party. Antisemitism is a feature of the Republican Party, not a bug.”

Federal authorities foiled an alleged terror plot by an anti-Israel, anti-American extremist group, officials announced on Monday. The group — the Turtle Island Liberation Front — appears to also be one of the organizers of an anti-Israel protest that targeted a Los Angeles synagogue this month. 

Four members of TILF were arrested over the weekend in the Mojave Desert, where they had allegedly gathered to attempt to construct improvised explosive devices. According to Bill Essayli, the first assistant U.S. attorney for the Central District of California, they planned to set off the pipe bombs in a coordinated attack at midnight on New Year’s Eve targeting U.S. companies in Los Angeles and Orange County, Calif. 

“Last Friday, Dec. 12, the defendants took a significant step to carry out their plans,” Essayli said at a press conference Monday, noting that they traveled to a remote campsite near Twentynine Palms in San Bernardino County to begin assembling the bombs. “They had everything they needed to make an operational bomb.” 

Attorney General Pam Bondi described TILF as “a far-left, pro-Palestine, anti-government, and anti-capitalist group” in a social media post about the arrests. The four people arrested were identified as Audrey Ilene Carroll, Dante Garfield, Zachary Aaron Page and Tina Lai. They face charges of conspiracy and possession of a destructive device. FBI Director Kash Patel announced on Monday that a fifth individual with ties to the plot was arrested in New Orleans. 

Carroll had a poster at her home that said “Death to America. Long live Turtle Island and Palestine,” according to prosecutors. Turtle Island is a phrase used by some Native Americans to describe North America. 

TILF appears to be an organizer of an anti-Israel protest that targeted Wilshire Boulevard Temple, one of the largest synagogues in Los Angeles, earlier this month. 

The group posted a “call to action” on its Instagram urging followers to target the “bloody war criminals” and “genocidal monsters” from Elbit Systems, an Israeli defense company, because of the purported use of Elbit’s AI technology in Los Angeles’ Koreatown neighborhood. “Never let them live in peace,” the caption read. 

The post listed an address on Wilshire Boulevard for the demonstration but did not name the location. The address corresponds with the Wilshire Boulevard Temple building where an event to teach Koreans about security strategies, featuring an AI researcher from Elbit Systems, was taking place at the same date and time. 

Protesters entered the synagogue and disrupted the event, with one person shattering a glass vase and chanting profanities. Two people were arrested during the incident. L.A. Mayor Karen Bass called the activists’ actions “abhorrent” and pledged to send more security to houses of worship. 

Other posts on TILF’s Instagram call for violence.

“Peaceful protest will never be enough,” one graphic reads. “The only way out is through resistance.” 

The account’s most recent post was promoting a Palestine-themed holiday market in Los Angeles last weekend. 

Prosecutors announced on Monday that the investigation into the TILF New Year’s Eve plot was due in part to an executive order signed by President Donald Trump in September “to root out left-wing domestic terror organizations in our country such as antifa and other radical groups,” according to Essayli.

The leftward lurch of the Democratic Party over the last year can be documented in many ways: The sudden rise of Zohran Mamdani as mayor-elect of New York City, the surge of far-left candidates running on socialist, anti-Israel platforms and the party accommodating a panoply of activist views, including anti-Israel activism, instead of drawing red lines against extremism.

But all of these developments don’t directly impact the party’s electoral fortunes, especially since the surge of left-wing activism has mainly predominated in the most-progressive parts of the country, like New York City, Seattle and safe Democratic districts.

But now there are clear signs that Democratic voters are rallying behind out-of-the-mainstream, in-your-face candidates in battleground and even GOP-leaning states and districts, developments that are putting races out of play for a party that’s hoping to ride an anti-Trump wave back into power in next year’s midterms.

Nowhere is the party’s leftward evolution clearer than in Texas, a conservative-minded state where the Senate race was potentially competitive as a result of GOP infighting. Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) is facing a serious primary threat from the state’s right-wing, scandal-plagued attorney general, Ken Paxton. The Democratic thinking: If Paxton won the nomination, a mainstream candidate with a track record of winning persuadable voters could at least force Republicans to spend money to defend red-state turf next year. 

To that end, Colin Allred, a former NFL player and center-left suburban lawmaker who was elected to the House in 2018 by winning over independents and some moderate Republicans, jumped into the race. Allred lost to Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) in 2024, but cut the GOP victory margin in the race to eight points — about half of President Donald Trump’s 14-point margin against Kamala Harris.

Allred’s brand of pragmatic politics was quickly overtaken this year by candidates drawing attention for their social media virality. Texas state Rep. James Talarico quickly emerged as an Allred alternative, offering a brand of TV-ready, populist progressivism that some party strategists thought could be a model for candidates looking to appeal to the base without insulting conservatives. Even though his voting record is liberal, the fact he went on Joe Rogan’s podcast and talked about faith drew him a niche following within the party.

But all that strategic posturing was rendered moot, after the polarizing and progressive Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) announced her candidacy on Monday, emerging as a front-runner in the Democratic primary even as most strategists view her as a surefire loser in a general election — no matter who Republicans nominate. What’s concerning Democrats even more is that if she’s nominated, her long history of controversial comments could hurt Democrats looking to hang on for reelection in competitive districts.

In a sign of where the energy in the party lies, Allred quickly announced he was dropping out of the Senate race and instead is pursuing a comeback bid in the House. Talarico is sticking around, and while his team is optimistic they can win the primary, they acknowledge they’re starting out with a double-digit deficit against the more-prominent Crockett.

If Democrats want to entertain any hopes of winning back the Senate majority, they have to prevail in at least two GOP-held seats in conservative territory — Ohio, Texas, Iowa and Alaska being the most realistic options. Putting Texas in play was always seen as part of that playbook, even as Democrats privately acknowledged their odds are long.

With Crockett as the nominee, not only does Texas fall out of contention, but the opportunity for Democrats to drain GOP resources in defending a red state also would become more unlikely. 

And what’s worrying Democrats is that the trend of voters rallying behind far-left candidates who aren’t electable is percolating far beyond Texas. In a Tennessee congressional special election this month, the party nominated state Rep. Aftyn Behn, a candidate nicknamed the “AOC of Tennessee,” as their standard-bearer against more-moderate alternatives in the primary. The race in a Trump-friendly district became competitive because of the GOP’s political problems, but Behn wasn’t able to exploit the opportunity because of her record.

There are many candidates emerging with backgrounds like Crockett and Behn in congressional primaries across the country. They’re the type of candidates who can win in deep-blue constituencies, but the party pays a price when they’re nominated in swing districts.  

CNN’s Edward-Isaac Dovere summed up the Democrats’ dilemma clearly: “This seems like a classic case of the party seeing a potential Republican disaster it could take advantage of, then laying the groundwork for the Democrats’ own disaster.”  

Far-left Tennessee state Rep. Aftyn Behn, making a bid for the open 7th Congressional District seat in next week’s special election, has staked out strongly anti-Israel positions during the course of her campaign and political career.

Behn’s race in the deep-red seat, against West Point graduate and military veteran Matt Van Epps, a Republican, has long been seen as a long shot, but it has attracted significant interest and support from national Democrats hoping for a show of Democratic strength in an upset victory.

Former Vice President Kamala Harris rallied with Behn in Tennessee earlier this month, and Behn has outraised Van Epps, $1.2 million to $993,000. Former Rep. Mark Green (R-TN), who vacated the seat earlier this year, won in 2024 by 20 points, but polls show Van Epps leading by just 8.

Behn called for a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, and described the war in Gaza as a genocide as early as Oct. 29, 2023, weeks after Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack on Israel, shortly after she was elected to the statehouse.

“I can’t sit on the sidelines, as so many of our elected officials have done the past few weeks. Their silence is deafening. Our struggles are global and inextricably linked as our liberation is bound together,” Behn said. “The United States is funding a genocide in Gaza right now, and this is a moment when we, as Tennesseans, need to care loudly for Palestinians as we do for marginalized communities in Tennessee.”

She expressed support for a House resolution led by far-left lawmakers calling for an immediate ceasefire.

“If you don’t live in Memphis, continue showing up to rallies and vigils in support of Gaza and Palestine, stand in solidarity with our Jewish allies who are, through their grief and loss, are calling for an end to the occupation, and link arms with our Muslim neighbors whose suffering is being unrecognized by those in power. None of us are free until we’re all free,” she continued.

In April 2024, Behn opposed a resolution expressing support for Israel and its right to defend itself and condemning the Oct. 7 attacks. “Israel is committing genocide, funded by the United States, and this resolution condones genocide,” Behn said in debate on the resolution.

She also visited the anti-Israel encampment at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, describing it as “well organized, grounded in liberation politics.”

“Solidarity with these students and all of those across the country standing up to state violence and calling for the end of genocide,” Behn wrote on X.

Last summer, Behn signed onto a letter calling on the Democratic National Convention to host a Palestinian speaker.

“The pain and suffering of hostage families have been rightfully highlighted and acknowledged on national platforms,” the letter reads. “We believe that it is equally important to create space for the Palestinian experience, which has been marked by decades of hardship, loss, and displacement.”

Behn also received an endorsement from Track AIPAC, an anti-Israel group that conditions its support for candidates on rejection of support from pro-Israel groups and support for declaring Palestinian statehood, among other criteria.

Her campaign has also been supported by the Democratic Socialists of America.

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

Rep. Maxine Dexter (D-OR) drew comparisons between the Holocaust and the war in Gaza, the latter of which she described as a genocide, in a speech on the House floor on Thursday, explaining her decision to support a resolution with far-left lawmakers, supported by anti-Israel groups, accusing Israel of genocide.

Dexter was backed by AIPAC’s United Democracy Project super PAC in her 2024 primary race against an opponent viewed as further left, and ran on a relatively standard Democratic platform when it came to Israel issues. But she has shifted dramatically to the far left on the issue in recent months, also throwing her support behind efforts to cut off offensive weapons transfers to the Jewish state.

The Oregon congresswoman began her speech by recounting a visit to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, the timing of which she described as “very intentional.”

“I went to reflect on the horrific history of dehumanization and ethnic cleansing that ultimately led the world to create a new term to describe such an unfathomable evil. That word is genocide,” Dexter said. “After the Holocaust, the international community made a commitment that such evil can never happen again to any people, anywhere. Never again, they said. That is why I recently signed on to a resolution recognizing Israel’s actions in Gaza led by the Netanyahu government as a genocide.”

Dexter said that she signed on “with a heavy heart” and “with the utmost respect for the Jewish people” but acknowledged that Jews in her district “may feel abandoned or deeply harmed by my action.” She professed her ongoing opposition to antisemitism and support for “our Jewish neighbors.”

“Many in this body have been reticent to clearly call out the mass suffering, the ethnic cleansing, the war crimes taking place in Gaza. I will not willingly continue to be part of that complicity,” Dexter continued. “As a United States representative, my job is to stand up against the power and our resources of this country being used in such ways.”

She said that “history has and will continue to judge this body, not just for what it did, but for what it failed to do. … I want my children to live in a country where leaders can be relied upon to lead with courage, empathy, and moral clarity. And I urge every Oregonian watching to hold me accountable in a shared unshakable belief in the sanctity of human life.”

Sara Bloomfield, the director of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, criticized Dexter’s comments.

“Exploiting the Holocaust to accuse Israel of genocide is unconscionable and adds further fuel to an already raging antisemitic fire,” Bloomfield said in a statement to Jewish Insider.

AIPAC spokesperson Marshall Wittmann said, “The claim of genocide by Israel is a mendacious attempt to distort facts, rewrite historyand a dangerous blood libel. The only genocide in this war happened on October 7, when Hamas openly admitted it wanted to kill every Israeli man, woman, and child it could.  To invoke the Holocaust against Israel is a grotesque moral abomination.”

President Donald Trump on Friday night publicly disavowed Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), once one of the president’s closest and most committed allies on Capitol Hill, saying he was withdrawing his endorsement of Greene and is prepared to support a primary challenger to the far-right Georgia congresswoman.

Greene, long dogged by controversy for her record of promoting antisemitic and otherwise fringe conspiracy theories, has emerged as one of the most vocal opponents of Israel on the right, accusing the country of genocide and leading efforts attempting to cut off U.S. aid to the Jewish state.

She has also repeatedly publicly criticized Trump’s policies and Republican leadership on Capitol Hill since the start of the government shutdown, earning Trump’s ire. Her breaks with the GOP have made her into a budding star in liberal media circles, where her ongoing promotion of conspiracy theories has increasingly been overlooked.

Trump said on his Truth Social platform that he has heard that “wonderful, Conservative people are thinking about primarying Marjorie” and that “if the right person runs, they will have my Complete and Unyielding Support,” accusing her of having “gone Far Left.”

Greene’s district is among the most heavily Republican in the country, and losing Trump’s support could prove a significant blow to the congresswoman.

“All I see ‘Wacky’ Marjorie do is COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN!” Trump wrote, adding that Greene’s criticism began after he showed her statewide polling that placed her at just 12% support and discouraged her from running for Senate or governor, both positions Greene had been eyeing.

According to NOTUS, Greene is discussing a presidential run in 2028, though she denied that to the publication.

“[Greene] has told many people that she is upset that I don’t return her phone calls anymore, but with 219 Congressmen/women, 53 U.S. Senators, 24 Cabinet Members, almost 200 Counties, and an otherwise normal life to lead, I can’t take a ranting Lunatic’s call every day,” Trump continued in his post.

He later called Greene a “Traitor” and a “disgrace to our GREAT REPUBLICAN PARTY!”

Greene responded on X, saying Trump had lied to her and claiming that two recent text messages about files related to child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein had “sent him over the edge,” saying it is “astonishing really how hard he’s fighting to stop the Epstein files from coming out.”

Greene is one of a small number of Republicans cosponsoring a measure to force a vote, over Republicans’ objections on files related to Epstein. Trump, an associate of Epstein, has sought to prevent the full release of those files, calling the push for further disclosure “the Epstein hoax.”

“Most Americans wish he would fight this hard to help the forgotten men and women of America who are fed up with foreign wars and foreign causes, are going broke trying to feed their families, and are losing hope of ever achieving the American dream,” Greene said. “I have supported President Trump with too much of my precious time, too much of my own money, and fought harder for him even when almost all other Republicans turned their back and denounced him. But I don’t worship or serve Donald Trump.”

In a subsequent post, Greene shared a graphic showing she has not received support from pro-Israel groups alongside another graphic comparing her “Liberty Score” to that of Trump-backed pro-Israel Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC). In the post, she wrote: “This and the Epstein files is why I’m being attacked by President Trump. It really makes you wonder what is in those files and who and what country is putting so much pressure on him?”

She also claimed that Trump’s posts are driving a wave of security threats against her.

Trump has also worked to defeat Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), another of the most vocal anti-Israel Republicans The president has endorsed retired Navy SEAL Ed Gallrein, who is challenging Massie in the GOP primary. 

On Friday, Trump called Massie a “LOSER!” in a separate Truth Social post, claiming that “the Polls have him at less than an 8% chance of winning the Election” and mocked his recent remarriage.

Democratic Mayor Jacob Frey of Minneapolis won reelection on Wednesday over his far-left, DSA-aligned challenger, state Sen. Omar Fateh, marking a win for the more pragmatic wing of the Democratic Party. 

A similar result may be emerging in Seattle, where preliminary results showed the Democratic incumbent, Mayor Bruce Harrell, leading over his socialist challenger, though many ballots remain to be counted. 

Frey, who is the second Jewish mayor to preside over Minneapolis, secured his third term, winning by six percentage points, 50% to 44%, in the final round of the city’s ranked choice voting on Wednesday.

Fateh, a progressive affiliated with the Democratic Socialists of America, has accused Israel of committing “genocide,” among other anti-Israel views, and campaigned with Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), who remains one of Israel’s harshest critics in Congress. 

Members of Fateh’s staff had also expressed hostile views towards Israel; His communications manager, Ayana Smith-Kooiman, said in a series of now-deleted social media posts that Israel “does not have a ‘right’ to exist” and “must be dismantled,” and said she did not care about Hamas a month after the Oct. 7, 2023, terror attacks — statements that drew rebuke from Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN). 

Frey’s victory in Minneapolis signals a wariness of a socialist candidate in the heavily Democratic city, in contrast with Zohran Mamdani’s win in New York City’s mayoral election on Tuesday. 

Meanwhile, in Seattle, the first wave of ballots counted Tuesday night found Harrell holding a seven-point lead over self-described socialist Katie Wilson, 53% to 46%.  

Wilson, who has expressed hostile views towards Israel, including calling the Jewish state’s war on Hamas a “genocide,” led over Harrell in the primary. Wilson has expressed support in the past for divesting from investments in Seattle that support Israeli actions, which is in line with the BDS movement. 

Additionally, some Seattle Jewish community leaders have expressed deep concern over Wilson’s candidacy and her relationships with anti-Israel activists, including Kshama Sawant, a former far-left Seattle city councilmember who has faced accusations of stoking antisemitism.

However, the race is still far from being decided. Many ballots are left to be counted, including a significant share from left-leaning parts of the city. The next tranche of ballots is set to be reported around 5 p.m. local time on Wednesday.

LAS VEGAS — Rep. Randy Fine (R-FL) called Tucker Carlson “the most dangerous antisemite in America” in remarks on Saturday at the Republican Jewish Coalition’s annual leadership conference, in what was an unusually direct rebuke of the far-right commentator who is facing backlash over his recent friendly interview with the neo-Nazi influencer Nick Fuentes.

“He has chosen to take on the mantle of leader of a modern day Hitler Youth,” Fine, a freshman congressman from Florida who is one of four Jewish Republicans in the House, said of Carlson. “To broadcast and feature those who celebrate the Nazis, those who call for the extermination of Israel, to defend Hamas, to even criticize President Trump for stopping Iran’s nuclear ambitions.”

Fine’s remarks came as the RJC now reckons with rising antisemitism within the Republican Party in the wake of the Fuentes interview last week, where Carlson, in a podcast conversation that ran for more than two hours, failed to challenge his guest’s praise for Adolf Hitler and Holocaust denial, among other antisemitic views. 

Kevin Roberts, the president of the Heritage Foundation, a leading conservative think tank, has also drawn criticism for standing by Carlson in the days after the interview, even as he has condemned Fuentes.

But while many speakers at the RJC summit have alluded to anti-Jewish prejudice on the right, few have explicitly mentioned Carlson or the Heritage Foundation in their own remarks, instead focusing largely on left-wing antisemitism.

“I can stand up here all day and take shots at the left,” Fine said in a ballroom at the Venetian Resort, standing in front of a long line of younger attendees who lined up before him with red posters declaring “Tucker is not MAGA,” a line he used in his speech.

“But I’m here for the kids down here, because it’s easy to talk about antisemitism on the left,” Fine continued. “I want to talk about the dark force rising on our side. Multiple speakers have talked about the rise of antisemitism on the right. But it is not enough to speak in platitudes or generalities about the fight. We must call evil by its name.”

The congressman said that Carlson’s “fall from grace has been one of the most extraordinary implosions in political history, and the rapidity of it has created real challenges for us all, because our friends don’t have our shared experience.”

“I can deal with this with my colleagues in the House,” he said. “See, they remember the Tucker of five years ago. They don’t live with antisemitism every day. They don’t think about it the way that we do, and it’s jarring for them to try to understand: How did this person become who he is today? But the challenge is, he’s inspired a movement of hate in our midst, and I’m not done calling people out.”

In his speech, Fine also said that he “was supposed to do an event with” the Heritage Foundation next week but had since changed his mind. “They don’t know what I’m about to tell you,” he told the crowd. “Right now we’re canceling it.”

“They have no future in my office, and I will be calling on all of my colleagues on the Republican side to do the same,” he said. “If those who support Tucker Carlson want to see a venomous coalition,” he said, referring to language from Roberts’ recent defense of Carlson, “all they need to do is go look in the mirror.”

In addition to Carlson and the Heritage Foundation, Fine turned his sights on two of his GOP colleagues, Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) and Thomas Massie (R-KY), both outspoken critics of Israel who have faced accusations of using antisemitic rhetoric.

“Some days, I marvel at their stupidity, other days, at their evil,” he said. “It makes my stomach crawl that I have to sit in the same room with them.”

“Now we have to choose: Will we ignore these embarrassments to our party?” he asked in his concluding remarks. “When we pretend they don’t matter or that they don’t exist, we make the same mistakes that Democrats made so many years ago.” 

“Today in this room and at this time, we speak with one loud and convincing truth,” Fine said to cheers from the audience. “We will not let our party fall to this darkness.”

Brad Lander, the New York City comptroller, is actively weighing a challenge to Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY) in next year’s primary election, according to people familiar with the matter, raising the prospect of a competitive race between an ally of far-left Democratic mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani and a pro-Israel incumbent.

Lander had, until recently, been widely expected to land a top job in a potential Mamdani administration, with whom he cross-endorsed during the June primary.

But following reports of an emerging strain in their alliance, Lander, a 56-year-old Jewish Democrat, is more closely eyeing Goldman’s seat, which covers Lower Manhattan and a section of Brooklyn that includes the progressive enclave of Park Slope. Lander’s thinking was reported on Monday by City & State New York, which said that he had told allies he was planning a primary challenge to Goldman.

Political strategists predicted that Lander, a longtime resident of Park Slope who represented parts of the district as a city councilman, would be a formidable candidate, particularly if Mamdani wins the mayoral race. “The polling and voter data would indicate a progressive running in this district would have a strong chance,” Chris Coffey, a Democratic consultant who resides in the district, told Jewish Insider on Monday.

“Dan will presumably have money and he’s the incumbent,” Coffey said of Goldman, an heir to the Levi Strauss fortune whose estimated net worth is up to $250 million. “But the mayor’s race will hang over this race.”

A primary matchup between Lander and Goldman would serve as a test of the Democratic electorate’s support for mainstream pro-Israel representation in New York City, as Mamdani’s campaign has brought renewed energy to the activist left opposed to Israel’s war in Gaza and lawmakers’ continued support for the Jewish state.

Goldman, a Jewish Democrat, has faced some backlash from constituents in his overwhelmingly left-leaning district over his support for Israel and continued refusal to endorse Mamdani, who is the front-runner in next Tuesday’s mayoral race. 

The 49-year-old congressman said in an interview last week that he remains “very concerned about some of the rhetoric coming from” Mamdani with regard to Israel. Goldman told CNN he had asked Mamdani, who has long been a fierce critic of Israel, to speak out against rising anti-Israel violence, but “I frankly haven’t really seen him do much on that.”

The potential race would also set up a unique clash between two Democrats who identify as Zionists but have differing views on what the term means. While Lander has been a vocal critic of Israel’s war in Gaza and called for pulling aid to Israel, Goldman, for his part, has been a defender of Israel during his tenure in office — even as he has not hesitated to challenge the Israeli government on key issues.

A spokesperson for Lander told JI on Monday that he is now “focused on electing Zohran Mamdani as mayor of New York City,” but did not comment on a challenge to Goldman.

Lander, speaking at a rally for Mamdani’s campaign on Sunday evening, made comments about electing progressives that some political observers viewed as a possible hint at his own plans to run for Goldman’s seat next year.

“We’ll take that fight to the halls of Congress, where it’s more important than ever that we have leaders who understand this moment and will be partners to Zohran,” said the outgoing one-term comptroller.

Goldman’s team, which recently dismissed a poll showing that he would lose in a primary opposing Lander, did not respond to a request for comment. 

In a statement on Monday, Goldman weighed in on a new lawsuit challenging a House district covering Staten Island and parts of southern Brooklyn, which if successful could reshape the congressional map in New York. The seat, held by Rep. Nicole Malliotakis (R-NY), borders Goldman’s district.

“NY-10 is my home and I will be running for Congress in my home district,” Goldman said in his statement. “If Staten Island is drawn into my district, then I will be ready to step up and take the fight for democracy and a Democratic House majority to Nicole Malliotakis’ doorstep. Nothing can stand in the way of us defeating Donald Trump and his spineless lackeys in Congress. Flipping the House isn’t optional — our future depends on it.”

If Lander chooses to run, he would likely have some company on the left in the primary, as Alexa Avilés, a city councilwoman who is closely aligned with the Democratic Socialists of America, is also reportedly exploring a bid, threatening to split the progressive vote.

One Democratic insider said that Lander had, as of last week, been informing allies he was going to join a likely future Mamdani administration. “Maybe he is floating his name to keep options open and Alexa out,” the insider speculated to JI on Monday.

In addition to Avilés, Yuh-Line Niou, a far-left former state assemblywoman, is also considering a primary challenge to Goldman, people familiar with the matter told JI. Goldman narrowly defeated Niou in a crowded primary in 2022, when he was first elected to the House. 

Niou did not respond to a request for comment on Monday. 

Even as he has drawn criticism from some left-wing voters, Goldman still maintains solid support in one of the more heavily Jewish congressional districts in the country, according to Ramon Maislen, a Jewish community activist in Park Slope.

“Many progressive and moderate Democrats will happily line up behind Dan,” Maislen told JI.

Graham Platner, a far-left Democratic candidate running for Senate in Maine who has captured the enthusiasm of the party’s grassroots base, sought to preempt rumors circulating in recent weeks that a black skull-and-cross bones tattoo on his chest is a Nazi symbol.

Speaking with Tommy Vietor on the “Pod Save America” political podcast, released on Monday night, Platner, 41, confirmed the existence of the tattoo, seen in video he shared displaying his bare chest, but suggested that his opponents in the race have been spreading claims that the symbol is affiliated with Nazism, which he forcefully denied.

“I am not a secret Nazi. Actually, if you read through my Reddit comments, I think you can pretty much figure out where I stand on Nazism and antisemitism and racism in general,” said Platner, a Marine veteran and oyster farmer in Maine who has faced scrutiny over past online posts. “I would say a lifelong opponent.”

But according to a person who socialized with Platner when he was living in Washington, D.C., more than a decade ago, Platner had specifically acknowledged that the tattoo was a Totenkopf, the “death’s head” symbol adopted by an infamous Nazi SS unit that guarded concentration camps in World War II.

“He said, ‘Oh, this is my Totenkopf,’” the former acquaintance told Jewish Insider recently, speaking on the condition of anonymity to address a sensitive issue. “He said it in a cutesy little way.”

The exchange occurred in 2012 at Tune Inn, a popular dive on Capitol Hill where Platner later worked as a bartender and was a frequent patron while he attended The George Washington University on the G.I. bill, according to the former acquaintance. He would often take his shirt off drinking with friends late at night at the bar, and on at least one occasion had stated he knew what the tattoo represented, the former acquaintance recalled.

Platner gave varying accounts of the image during this time, saying at one point he was aware it was a Totenkopf when he had first gotten the tattoo several years prior and at another time claiming he had not known, according to the former acquaintance.

The mixed accounts indicate that Platner has at least long been aware of the symbols’s connection to Nazism, even as he said in the podcast interview he was not familiar with any such association when he chose to get the tattoo.

Platner, who is running to unseat Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) said he had gotten the tattoo in Split, Croatia, in 2007, when he and a group of “very inebriated” fellow Marines had time off while on deployment and decided to step into a parlor. “We chose a terrifying-looking skull and crossbones off the wall, because we were Marines, and skulls and crossbones are a pretty standard military thing,” he explained on the podcast.

“We got those tattoos, and then we all moved on with our lives,” he added, emphasizing he had later served in the Army and received a security clearance to work as a contractor for the State Department in Afghanistan. “I can honestly say that if I was trying to hide it,” he continued, “I’ve not been doing a very good job for the past 18 years.”

In a statement shared with JI on Tuesday, Platner said he did not know about the tattoo’s connection to Nazi imagery until recently. “It was not until I started hearing from reporters and DC insiders that I realized this tattoo resembled a Nazi symbol,” he said. “I absolutely would not have gone through life having this on my chest if I knew that  — and to insinuate that I did is disgusting. I am already planning to get this removed.”

Platner’s former political director, Genevieve McDonald, who resigned from his campaign last week over her objection to his recently unearthed incendiary Reddit comments, said in a Facebook post on Tuesday that “Graham has an antisemitic tattoo on his chest.”

“He’s not an idiot, he’s a military history buff,” McDonald wrote in the post, which was reviewed by JI. “Maybe he didn’t know it when he got it, but he got it years ago and he should have had it covered up because he knows damn well what it means.”

McDonald said that Platner’s campaign “released it themselves to some podcast bros, along with a video of him shirtless and drunk at a wedding to try to get ahead of it.”

A spokesperson for the Anti-Defamation League said in a statement to JI that Platner’s tattoo “appears to be a Nazi Totenkopf tattoo, and if true, it is troubling that a candidate for high office would have one.”

“We do understand that sometimes people get tattoos without understanding their hateful association,” the ADL spokesperson added. “In those cases, the bearer should be asked whether they repudiate its hateful meaning.”

Platner, a political newcomer who is facing Gov. Janet Mills and other candidates in the Democratic primary, launched his campaign in August and has raised more than $4 million while promoting a left-wing populist message — including staunch criticism of Israel and opposition to “fascists” — that garnered a high-profile endorsement from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT). 

The Senate race is widely viewed by Democratic leadership as a major pickup opportunity in the midterm elections, as the party works to regain a majority in the upper chamber.

But Platner’s campaign has lost momentum in recent days amid the revelations that he had made several controversial comments while posting in Reddit forums. In a range of comments published anonymously, Platner, who has acknowledged that he wrote the posts and apologized for some of them, described himself as a “communist,” called all cops “bastards” and dismissed sexual assault in the military, among other remarks facing backlash.

In previously unreported posts reviewed by JI, Platner defended a man with a Nazi SS lightning bolt tattoo who later admitted to impersonating a federal officer at a Black Lives Matter protest in Las Vegas in 2020. “I will be sure to inform the black guys I know with bolts that they’re Nazis now and not USMC Scout/Snipers,” Platner said in a deleted Reddit post, referring to the Marines.

“Bolts were a STA icon since the ’80s at least, if not longer,” he wrote in another, using military jargon. “It was never official, but it sure as shit was tattooed on almost every HOG I knew between 2004-2012.”

Platner has also drawn scrutiny for appearing in a photo this summer with a white supremacist agitator in Maine, Richard Ward, who is running for a Bangor City Council seat.

Ward, a far-right activist who frequently spreads neo-Nazi rhetoric and imagery, wrote on Facebook in late August that he met and shook hands with Platner during an encounter at a Maine fair, posting a photo in which they are both seen standing side by side.

“Shaking hands with Graham Platner today at Blue Hill Fair,” Ward said. “Check out Graham Platner for U.S. Senate. We have a lot in common.” 

In the photo, Ward is pictured wearing a T-shirt emblazoned with the number “88,” an apparent reference to a widely recognized neo-Nazi code for “Heil Hitler.” The post, a screenshot of which was obtained by JI, has since been deleted from Ward’s Facebook page.

A spokesperson for Platner’s campaign confirmed the encounter had taken place but said that he had quickly ended the conversation. “Graham promptly told Richard to f*** off and get the f*** away, like he would tell any Nazi,” the spokesperson told JI last month.

Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic nominee for mayor of New York City, expressed disagreement on Thursday with comments by Hasan Piker, a far-left streamer who has said “America deserved 9/11,” after several months in which the state assembly member had declined to condemn such rhetoric.

“I find the comments that Hasan made on 9/11 to be objectionable and reprehensible,” Mamdani said during the first general election debate on Thursday night, where he traded barbs with former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who is trailing in the polls as he mounts an independent run following his primary loss to Mamdani in June.

Still, Mamdani, a 33-year-old democratic socialist, defended his decision to appear on Piker’s show for an extensive interview during the primary — even as the streamer has otherwise frequently stirred controversy for using antisemitic rhetoric in his commentary on Israel and Jewish issues. 

“I also think that part of the reason why Democrats are in the situation that we are in, of being a permanent minority in this country, is we are looking only to speak to journalists and streamers and Americans with whom we agree on every single thing that they say,” Mamdani argued, while making no mention of Piker’s antisemitic comments. “We need to take the case to every person, and I am happy to do that.”

Piker has faced criticism for justifying Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attacks and forcefully denying some of the terror group’s atrocities — including widespread reports of sexual violence. In one notable stream last year, Piker said “it doesn’t matter if rapes f***ing happened on Oct. 7,” while adding that “the Palestinian resistance is not perfect.” He has also described Orthodox Jews as “inbred” and compared Zionists to Nazis, among other slurs seen as antisemitic.

Elsewhere during the debate, Mamdani, an outspoken critic of Israel who was arrested in October 2023 during a ceasefire demonstration outside the Brooklyn home of then-Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), declined to confirm that he would not participate in protests if he is elected mayor. “The important thing is to lead from City Hall,” Mamdani said. “That’s what I’ll be doing.”

Mamdani had faced intense backlash before the debate for comments during a Fox News interview released on Wednesday in which he avoided directly answering a question about whether Hamas should disarm and relinquish its leadership role in Gaza. He clarified at the debate that Hamas, as well as “all parties,” “should lay down” their arms but did not comment on its future role in the conflict.  

“I’m proud to be one of the first elected officials in the state who called for a ceasefire, and calling for a ceasefire means ceasing fire,” Mamdani said. “That means all parties have to cease fire and put down their weapons. And the reason that we call for that is not only for the end of the genocide, but also an unimpeded access of humanitarian aid.”

He added that “we also have to ensure that [the ceasefire] addresses the conditions that preceded this, conditions like occupation, like the siege and apartheid, and that is what I’m hopeful for.”

Mamdani, who has seen mixed results in his continued outreach to the Jewish community, also once again refused to condemn the phrase “globalize the intifada” — even as he reiterated that it “evokes many painful memories” for Jewish voters and reiterated he will “discourage” its usage.

The newly brokered ceasefire and hostage-release agreement between Israel and Hamas was met on Thursday with a notable lack of enthusiasm from the most outspoken Democratic detractors of Israel in Congress — even as they have vocally advocated for ending the war in Gaza. 

While the deal drew accolades across the political spectrum, from left-wing Israel detractors such as Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) to MAGA stalwarts, some of the most high-profile members of the far-left Squad and other ideologically aligned lawmakers remained silent well after the first phase of the agreement was finalized Wednesday or offered only grudging praise for the long-awaited development that could lead to an end to the war.

Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), Summer Lee (D-PA) and Greg Casar (D-TX), chair of the House Progressive Caucus, did not respond to requests for comment from Jewish Insider and had not weighed in publicly on the deal as of Thursday night, despite widespread reaction to the agreement on Capitol Hill.

In statements to social media, Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and Delia Ramirez (D-IL) briefly voiced hope that the deal would hold but reiterated their accusation that Israel had committed genocide in Gaza and called for increased accountability in the conflict, without referring to Hamas’ involvement.

Like Omar, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) made no mention of the hostages in his own response to the deal, which also expressed hope that the agreement would, “as soon as possible,” help end “this horrific war.”

The relatively muted comments — or lack thereof — underscore how anti-Israel lawmakers are reluctant to praise a major diplomatic breakthrough brokered by President Donald Trump — even as it aligns with their interests in ultimately ending the two-year war in Gaza.

They also highlight how the broader pro-Palestinian movement, whose extreme rhetoric has increasingly signaled support for Hamas as a “resistance” group righteously opposing occupation, has grown captive to a narrow and uncompromising conception of the war that attributes blame for the conflict exclusively to Israel while largely dismissing the suffering of the hostages.

In a statement addressing the agreement, for example, Abdul El-Sayed, a prominent critic of Israel who is now running for Senate in Michigan, said that “the impending return of Palestinian and Israeli hostages to their families offers a glimmer of hope in a dark time,” equating Israeli hostages and Palestinian prisoners, some of whom were serving life sentences for terrorism, now set to be released as part of a hostage-for-prisoners exchange with Hamas.

El-Sayed also devoted most of his lengthy message to denouncing “genocide in Gaza,” saying that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “and all who enabled these atrocities must be held accountable under international law.” El-Sayed’s statement did not name Hamas.

Earlier this week, El-Sayed had drawn widespread backlash over a fundraising email his campaign sent on the two-year anniversary of Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attacks that blamed Israel for the war in Gaza but also did not mention the terrorist group or the massacre that had initially sparked the war in Gaza. 

As the new agreement is set to be implemented in the coming days, it will be worth closely observing if the Squad’s rhetoric on the situation in Gaza evolves — and whether even the most hostile critics of Israel can muster even a little enthusiasm for a deal that could fulfill a goal they have pushed since the start of the war.

Zohran Mamdani isn’t the only far-left, anti-Israel candidate running for mayor in a city with a notable Jewish constituency in November. As we’ve noted in these pages, socialist Katie Wilson is vying to unseat Mayor Bruce Harrell in the Seattle mayoral race. And far-left challenger Omar Fateh is running competitively against Mayor Jacob Frey in a closely watched Minneapolis mayoral contest.

But one lower-profile race featuring a Democratic Socialists of America activist with involvement in anti-Israel groups has flown under the radar. In the progressive city of Somerville, Mass. — just outside Boston and bordering Cambridge — City Councilor Willie Burnley Jr. advanced to a runoff against another city council member, Jake Wilson. 

In the city’s first round of balloting, which ousted the city’s sitting mayor, Katjana Ballantyne, Wilson finished first with 42% of the citywide vote, but Burnley wasn’t far behind with 34%. Ballantyne, facing a backlash to the city’s rising housing costs, lagged in third place with just 23% of the vote.

If Burnley prevails, he would be the city’s first Black, openly queer and polyamorous mayor, according to Axios.

But Burnley’s unconventional self-identification pales in comparison to his radical record. He’s been endorsed by the Democratic Socialists of America, and has been active in the organization for at least the last several years. He has participated in anti-Israel protests, including one where he is standing in front of a protester holding a sign with a Nazi swastika flag next to an Israeli flag. At a Tufts University anti-Israel protest last year, he posed in front of posters reading “Glory to the martyrs.”

He has touted his endorsement from the anti-Israel group “Somerville for Palestine” and walked out on a Jewish constituent objecting to the city council’s consideration of a measure that would require Somerville to divest city funds business from companies that do business with Israel. In 2018, he was pictured being involved with the anti-Israel group IfNotNow.

Unsurprisingly, Burnley holds extremist views on other major issues of consequence, most notably supporting efforts to defund the police and describing the founders of the United States as “genocidal, racist, rapists who stole this country because they wrote some nice words.”

Burnley’s surprising advancement to the general election is another sign of the growth of far-left politics within the Democratic Party — particularly in urban centers. While the first round of results suggests that the more-experienced Wilson starts as the favorite, the fact that someone with Burnley’s extreme politics is in the running and could win one-third of the vote is alarming.

The House Oversight Committee asked the Trump administration on Monday to investigate if far-left billionaire Neville Roy Singham’s bankrolling of “extremist organizations fueling division and civil unrest across the United States” would qualify him for federal sanctions or make him eligible for criminal or legal penalties.

Committee Chairman James Comer (R-KY) and Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL), who chairs the Declassification of Federal Secrets Task Force, sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, requesting the Treasury look into “certain far-left entities, organized and funded by” Singham, as well as his failure “to register as a foreign agent under FARA.”

The lawmakers describe Singham as “a U.S. citizen with ties to the CCP” who has reportedly “been funding and supporting various extremist entities in the United States with the aim of causing destruction and division in our country.”

Singham is a financier who has been accused of funding groups to advance Chinese talking points as well as a network of anti-Israel protest groups responsible for unrest on college campuses, according to the Network Contagion Research Institute. 

“Neville Singham has spent millions funding militant organizations that have orchestrated violent riots and launched targeted hate campaigns against Americans with different beliefs,” Luna wrote on X.

The lawmakers noted in the letter that they are investigating efforts by the Chinese Communist Party “to sow discord in the United States,” writing: “It is imperative that we expeditiously halt the continued flow of funds and material support for malign activities conducted at the behest of the CCP.”

The letter cites reporting from the New York Times, the Free Press and a letter sent to former Attorney General Merrick Garland last year by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, while still serving as senator from Florida, and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) “raising concerns about Mr. Singham’s activities on behalf of the CCP.”

“It does not appear that the Biden Administration addressed this potential source of civil unrest,” the lawmakers wrote, citing reporting from data scientist Jennica Pounds alleging that Singham’s activities had recently “expanded to include the foment of unrest and civil disobedience in Los Angeles — prompting President Donald Trump to call in the National Guard to counter attacks on federal law enforcement officials.”

They added that, “It has been reported that Mr. Singham is ‘the main backer behind’ the Party for Socialism and Liberation, which has organized nationwide protests, including riots in Los Angeles.”

Singham, who resides in China, “created an elaborate dark money network which allows him to send funds to a series of non-profits,” the letter stated, later adding: “Mr. Singham has expanded his network to include not only far-left, pro-CCP entities, but also radical, antisemitic entities. One such organization is Shut It Down for Palestine (SID4P), an entity established in October 2023.”

Hasan Piker, the far-left streamer who frequently stirs controversy for using antisemitic rhetoric in his commentary on Israel and Jewish issues, will join a roundtable discussion next month hosted by The New Yorker Festival, the publication announced on Wednesday in a full lineup of events.

The conversation on Oct. 26, which will focus on “how the internet has reshaped political life” and its implications “for the future of democracy,” will also feature Saagar Enjeti, a right-wing populist pundit who co-hosts the “Breaking Points” podcast. It will be moderated by Andrew Marantz, a staff writer for The New Yorker, who published a feature story last March about Piker’s popularity among an audience of young, male voters who have recently gravitated to the right.

Piker, whose videos on Twitch and YouTube reach millions of viewers, has faced criticism for justifying Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, terror attacks, while forcefully denying some of the terror group’s atrocities — such as widespread reports of sexual violence that he has dismissed as “rape fantasies” and “hallucinations.”

In one stream last year, Piker, 34, argued that “it doesn’t matter if rapes f***ing happened on Oct. 7 — like that doesn’t change the dynamic for me even this much,” adding that “the Palestinian resistance is not perfect.”

He has also described Orthodox Jews as “inbred,” called a Jewish man a “bloodthirsty, violent pig dog” and compared Zionists to Nazis, among other slurs seen as antisemitic.   

His festival appearance drew criticism from the Anti-Defamation League, which denounced The New Yorker’s “decision to platform Piker” as “the latest example of mainstream media normalizing his brand of antisemitism and anti-Zionism.”

The streamer’s “toxic and extreme rhetoric opposing Zionism and the Jewish state normalizes antisemitism, reinforces bigotry and launders terror — and it has no place at a conference devoted to prominent influencers,” an ADL spokesperson told Jewish Insider on Wednesday, arguing that Piker’s “extreme statements” on a range of topics “should permanently disqualify him from appearing at any major media festival.”

“His appearing at a festival alongside such notables as Salman Rushdie, who lived for decades under threat of death from the Iranian regime, is deeply ironic, considering that Iran supports Hezbollah and the Houthis, two groups that Piker has openly admired and celebrated,” the spokesperson added, referring to the British-Indian writer who is among several prominent guests now scheduled to join the event next month.  

A spokesperson for The New Yorker declined to comment when reached by JI on Wednesday. 

In his extensive online monologues, Piker has notably defended the Lebanese terrorist group Hezbollah, compared the Houthis in Yemen to the hero of an anime show and characterized the Oct. 7 attacks as an inevitable response to “violent means of maintaining an apartheid,” among other extreme comments.

Piker, a fierce opponent of Israel’s right to exist, has more recently equated liberal Zionism with Nazism, according to a video of his remarks posted to social media last month.

“Zionism is an exterminationist ideology built around ethno-religious supremacist values,” he said in a conversation with Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) at the Democratic Socialists of America’s convention earlier this month. “So when people say, like, ‘Oh, well, I’m a liberal Zionist, I want there to be a Jewish ethno-state,’ I’m like, OK, what do you mean? It’s like saying you’re like a liberal Nazi. Like, you want an Aryan majority ethno-state?”

Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY) has accused Piker of engaging in “textbook antisemitism” and called on Twitch, which is owned by Amazon, to cut ties with the streamer, describing his comments as a leading contributor to “an explosion of Jew-hatred on social media” in the wake of Hamas’ Oct. 7 attacks.

Piker has rejected allegations of antisemitism, while insisting his views have been misconstrued as opposition to Jewish people rather than the Israeli government, a claim his critics have interpreted as disingenuous.

The streamer has otherwise mocked widespread concerns about rising global antisemitism — calling the issue a distraction from Israel’s military conduct in Gaza.

But even as he has faced backlash for promoting antisemitic rhetoric, Piker has continued to draw friendly profiles in mainstream outlets such as The New York Times and GQ magazine, which is owned by The New Yorker’s parent company, Condé Nast. He has also hosted several high-profile lawmakers on his streaming platform, including Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Ed Markey (D-MA) and Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Ro Khanna (D-CA).

Piker did not respond to a request for comment on Wednesday about his planned comments for the roundtable next month. 

The New Yorker Festival, an annual multiday event in New York City featuring well-known figures in arts, media and politics, previously faced backlash in 2018 for inviting Steve Bannon, a former White House chief strategist to President Donald Trump who now hosts a popular MAGA-world podcast, to headline a conversation with the magazine’s editor, David Remnick.

Following major dropouts from participants who protested Bannon’s appearance at the festival — as well as internal objections raised by the magazine’s employees — Remnick announced he had decided to pull the invitation, saying that he did not “want well-meaning readers and staff members to think” that he had “ignored their concerns” regarding the controversial Trump ally.

If there is one word to describe the political mood in dealing with rising antisemitism, it would be apathy. Even the most jaw-dropping displays of anti-Jewish hatred — from abject Holocaust denial on far-right podcasts to support for Hamas’ atrocities on the extreme left — are increasingly responded to with shrugs from mainstream political leaders. 

The most recent example of obvious antisemitism being ignored by a party’s political class came out of Minnesota, where we reported about Minneapolis Democratic mayoral candidate Omar Fateh — running as a democratic socialist against sitting Mayor Jacob Frey — hiring top staff who celebrated Hamas’ Oct. 7 terror attacks. 

In normal times, a candidate would be ashamed to be associated with extremists, and would immediately cut ties with the offending staffers. Not long ago, having ties to that type of extremist rhetoric would be disqualifying for the candidate as well. 

But these are not normal times. Not only has Fateh, a state senator, ignored the controversy entirely, but the local and national media has been uninterested in following up on Jewish Insider’s reporting about the radical operatives on Fateh’s team. 

Even more shocking: Two of Frey’s most prominent backers, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz — have remained silent when asked about their thoughts about the antisemitism stemming from an endorsee’s political rival. It’s a sign that many mainstream Democrats fear that speaking out against antisemitism or anti-Israel extremism could lead to a backlash from other grassroots supporters. 

At best, it’s a sign that speaking out against hate carries few political benefits these days.

We saw a similar dynamic in Virginia this month, when former Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D-VA), the Democratic nominee for governor, initially avoided answering questions from our reporters when asked about the rhetoric from an influential Democratic legislator tagging Zionism as “evil.” (After other leading Democrats weighed in, she responded: “One can and must denounce these tragedies without using antisemitic language, whether intentional or not.”)

Unlike in Minneapolis, which is heavily Democratic and deeply progressive, Virginia is a more competitive battleground. But even in battleground states, the makeup of the Democratic Party has changed to the point where speaking out against virulent anti-Israel rhetoric carries the potential for backlash from Arab and left-wing voices within the party coalition.

The apathy towards antisemitism is far from only a left-wing issue. On the right-wing side of the ledger, there are numerous examples of a grassroots infrastructure — from podcasts to social media influencers — that has become openly antisemitic and hostile to Israel. 

Tucker Carlson is the most prominent of these voices, but the number of podcasters and so-called influencers who share his worldview is growing. It’s as much a demand-side problem as a supply-side one. It’s now perfectly plausible to build a niche as a far-right purveyor of hate in the new social media ecosystem, and build a lucrative audience from that base. 

We’ve also seen, on the Republican side, the reticence to confront antisemitism when it’s happening from within its own ranks. When the Pentagon hired a deputy press secretary with a long history of promoting antisemitic conspiracy theories, barely a peep of protest was heard from within partisan circles. In fact, she’s since been promoted to become the lead press secretary at the Defense Department.

There’s something broken in our political culture where we’ve, broadly speaking, become numb to the crazy. It’s a bipartisan phenomenon. And it’s happening as real-life antisemitic violence is at record levels, highlighted recently by the firebombing against Jews in Boulder, Colo.; the murder of two Israeli Embassy staffers in Washington; and the attack on Gov. Josh Shapiro’s home in Harrisburg, Pa. 

The trend only underscores the need for Jewish organizations to speak up in the face of this rising hate, and if necessary, turn up the political pressure on all fronts. 

Two political activists closely affiliated with Omar Fateh, a far-left Minnesota state senator who is now running for mayor of Minneapolis, have expressed a range of extreme views on the Hamas terror attacks of Oct. 7, 2023, endorsing the violence as a justified act of resistance and accusing Israel of initiating the war in Gaza, among other inflammatory comments.

Their rhetoric could fuel concerns among local Jewish leaders who sounded alarms about Fateh’s close alliances with anti-Israel activists after he won the state Democratic Party endorsement last month over Jacob Frey, the incumbent seeking a third and final term. Fateh, a 35-year-old democratic socialist whose campaign has recently drawn comparisons to New York City Democratic mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani, has likewise been a staunch critic of Israel, calling its conduct in Gaza a genocide and pushing for a ceasefire 10 days after Hamas’ attack.

In a mayoral candidate questionnaire solicited by the Twin Cities chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America — which endorsed his bid after facing widespread criticism over its response to the Oct. 7 attack — Fateh also backed the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement targeting Israel, according to portions of the form reviewed by Jewish Insider. 

He additionally pledged, without explanation, to “refrain from any and all affiliation” with what the DSA questionnaire dismissed as “Zionist lobby groups,” citing AIPAC, J Street, Christians United for Israel and, most notably, the Jewish Community Relations Council, a nonpartisan organization that typically engages with a diverse group of elected officials in both parties. The local JCRC — which represents the Jewish community to Minneapolis government officials — has voiced reservations about its ability to interact with Fateh if he is elected, in light of his statements on Israel.

But some of Fateh’s campaign staffers have gone significantly further than the state legislator, raising questions over his tolerance for incendiary language on a sensitive issue that has stoked growing internal tensions in the state party and could possibly inflect an increasingly bitter mayoral race in the lead-up to November.

In a series of now-deleted social media posts, for instance, Fateh’s communications manager, Anya Smith-Kooiman stated that Israel “does not have a ‘right’ to exist” and “must be dismantled,” while amplifying comments dismissing widespread reports of sexual violence on Oct. 7 as “propaganda” and hailing the attacks as a form of “resistance” that succeeded where the peace process had failed.

Elsewhere, Smith-Kooiman, who joined Fateh’s campaign in December, according to her LinkedIn page, declared a month after the Oct. 7 attacks that she did “not give a flying f**k about Hamas,” claiming “the root of the problem is a colonial government segregating, ethnically cleaning, murdering Palestinians, stealing their land with impunity and not expecting a resistance group to violently fight back.”

“Colonial and oppressive regimes love to call everyone but themselves a terrorist,” she continued in her November 2023 post to X, now removed from her profile. “Israeli terrorism created Hamas and the cycle will go on and on until Israel, Britain and the U.S. are held accountable for their violence and thievery. Let’s address root causes: imperialism.”

More recently, Smith-Kooiman, in a June social media post, advocated for the release of what she called “all Palestinian hostages,” equating prisoners held in Israel with the captives who were kidnapped by Hamas on Oct. 7.

In addition to Smith-Kooiman, another activist with ties to Fateh’s mayoral bid, David Gilbert-Pederson, has unreservedly praised the Oct. 7 attack, which he has characterized as a heroic feat of defiance against “imperial domination.”

Speaking on a panel discussion about “connecting movements for collective liberation” in December 2023, Gilbert-Pederson — who has been listed as a Fateh campaign staffer in filings — celebrated “what happened collectively for the people of Palestine on Oct. 7,” saying it was not his place to cast judgment on the violence. 

“We as Americans, people who live in the imperial core, our job is to stand in unconditional solidarity with those resisting oppression,” Gilbert-Pederson, a close ally of Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), explained in his panel remarks. “Unconditional solidarity does not mean that we get to say, ‘Oh, this tactic you did, we don’t really like that,’ or, ‘We agree with you, but I think that some of your methods are too extreme.’ That’s not what unconditional solidarity means.”

“We live in the core of the empire,” he said, “so it is our job to demand that our government divest from Israel, divest from the colonial project, and start to free the U.S. as well.”

Broadly summarizing his approach, he argued that “all resistance to that kind of imperial domination is justified.”

Fateh’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment on Wednesday about Gilbert-Pederson and Smith-Kooiman, both of whom have previously faced some scrutiny for their rhetoric on Israel and Oct. 7, or his answers to the DSA’s questionnaire.

For his part, Frey, a Jewish Democrat, has been outspoken against rising antisemitism in the wake of Hamas’ attacks. The mayor, 44, has clashed with the City Council over anti-Israel resolutions he has dismissed as one-sided, even as he has condemned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his government’s handling of the ongoing war in Gaza.

Jewish community activists in Minneapolis are voicing concerns about the rise of state Sen. Omar Fateh, a far-left lawmaker who, in a surprise upset, narrowly clinched the state Democratic Party endorsement on Saturday against incumbent Mayor Jacob Frey.

Fateh, a 35-year-old democratic socialist, has rarely commented on Israel or rising antisemitism during his time in the state Senate, even as he called for a ceasefire in the war between Israel and Hamas just 10 days after the Oct. 7, 2023, terror attacks.  

But his close alliances with anti-Israel voices such as the Twin Cities arm of the Democratic Socialists of America — which backs efforts to boycott and divest from Israel — have raised questions over his approach to key issues and his potential outreach to the organized Jewish community as he vies for the mayorship. 

In its mayoral endorsement questionnaire, the DSA asked candidates to pledge “to refrain from any and all affiliation with the Israeli government or Zionist lobby groups” — citing AIPAC, J Street and even the nonpartisan Jewish Community Relations Council.

Fateh’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment about whether he signed the pledge, but its existence is “alarming,” said Ethan Roberts, the deputy director of the Jewish Community Relations Council of Minnesota and the Dakotas.

“It’s instructive that Fateh sought and received the DSA endorsement,” Roberts told Jewish Insider in an interview on Monday. “There’s obviously a clear contrast between Mayor Frey, who’s a Democrat — and Sen. Fateh, who’s a DSA-er.”

Still, Roberts echoed other community activists in warning against drawing parallels between Fateh’s victory and Zohran Mamdani’s recent upset in New York City’s mayoral primary, noting that the party’s endorsement is not necessarily reflective of broader voter sentiment in Minneapolis — even as it comes with organizational muscle that could help to boost his insurgent campaign.

Fateh, a Muslim of Somali descent, celebrated his endorsement from the state party over the weekend as “a message that Minneapolis residents are done with broken promises, vetoes and politics as usual,” he wrote on social media. 

For his part, Frey, a Jewish Democrat seeking what would be his third and final term as mayor, is appealing the vote, alleging that several ballots had gone uncounted during the state party convention. His campaign filed a formal challenge with the state party on Monday.

“Everyone who endured this multi-hour convention process deserved to have their voices heard,” Sam Schulenberg, the mayor’s campaign manager, said in a statement on Monday, while pointing to what he dismissed as a “highly flawed process that clearly missed or did not count a large percentage of the votes cast.” 

Frey, the second Jewish mayor to represent Minneapolis, has been outspoken against rising antisemitism in recent years, and has butted heads with the City Council over anti-Israel resolutions he has dismissed as one-sided. 

If the endorsement of Fateh holds, it will “create a lot of headwinds” for Jewish party activists, Manny Houle, a pro-Israel party strategist in Minneapolis, told JI, anticipating a challenging relationship with Fateh and his allies on the left. 

“We always have an open hand, but if somebody bites it we don’t keep our hand extended — and we expect that to be the same here,” Houle said. “He’s surrounded by a lot of people who have made their positions clear.”

Houle also pointed to emerging concerns about a DSA-backed resolution that abruptly passed near the end of the convention on Saturday — opposing any city investment or contracts with what it called “entities complicit in the occupation and genocide in Gaza.”

Houle said he was working with some groups that are preparing challenges to the resolution, saying that it could cause “long-term issues” for the Jewish community — particularly in “how it is pigeonholed around the conflict” in the Middle East. “There’s no nuance in this conversation anymore,” he told JI. 

One Jewish party activist, who spoke on condition of anonymity to address a sensitive topic, said that the resolution was “emblematic” of his reservations  around Fateh’s bid. 

“I’m concerned about what this means for Jewish safety in Minneapolis,” he told JI. “I’m concerned about what his relationship will be with local Jewish organizations, if he’s elected.”

Yiscah Bracha, a Jewish activist involved in local Democratic politics, also expressed concerns about the trajectory of the race as Frey now finds himself playing defense. 

“I’m concerned by Fateh’s endorsement,” she said, “but I’m more concerned about the movement that produced the endorsement for him.”

Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), in a private meeting with House Democrats in Washington on Wednesday, avoided confronting Zohran Mamdani, the far-left Democratic nominee for mayor of New York City, over his controversial defense of calls to “globalize the intifada” and fierce opposition to Israel.

Gottheimer, a moderate Jewish Democrat who is among the most outspoken supporters of Israel in the House, has not been shy about publicly calling out members of his own party when disagreements over Israel and antisemitism have arisen in recent years.

But during the breakfast meeting this week, Gottheimer did not bring up his objections to the 33-year-old democratic socialist, according to a House aide familiar with the matter, even as his views on Israel have raised alarms among Jewish voters and faced pushback from Democratic leaders who have so far withheld endorsements in the New York City mayoral race. 

In a statement, Gottheimer reiterated his concerns about Mamdani’s progressive policy proposals and his acceptance of rhetoric that Jewish leaders have condemned as antisemitic. But the New Jersey congressman suggested he was willing to hear from the mayoral nominee about his stunning primary upset that has rattled the political establishment.

“I don’t think higher taxes, anti-job creating socialism, and an acceptance of antisemitic rhetoric is the right direction for America,” Gottheimer told Jewish Insider, echoing comments he shared in an interview with CNBC on Thursday morning and elsewhere in recent weeks. “That said, I am always open to learning how I can reach more people with my commonsense, problem-solving approach.”

He declined to comment further on the meeting to JI on Thursday. “I don’t have anything to say beyond what I put out,” the congressman said.

Later on Thursday, Gottheimer announced he was introducing a bipartisan resolution condemning the phrase “globalize the intifada,” which Mamdani has refused to condemn. The motto chanted frequently at anti-Israel demonstrations is “hate speech, plain and simple,” the congressman wrote in a statement that did not mention Mamdani, arguing such words “incite violence, fuel hate and put Jewish families at risk.”

Still, Gottheimer voiced no such disapproval in the Wednesday breakfast hosted by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) — which included several progressive House Democrats and was promoted as a “communication and organizing” session as the party rethinks its messaging strategy ahead of next year’s midterms.

Gottheimer’s reticence to speak out directly during the in-person meeting stands in contrast with his past denunciations of Mamdani, whose defense of the “intifada” phrase — seen by critics as a violent provocation to target Jews — he has called “insane and unacceptable” amid rising antisemitic activity.

The divisive slogan “is a well-known antisemitic chant that calls for the eradication of Israel and violence against Jews,” Gottheimer said in a social media post a week before the primary last month. 

“Zohran Mamdani’s pathetic, hateful lies are a blatant slap in the face of the Jewish community,” he added. “He must apologize immediately. I also suggest that he visit the Holocaust Museum in the coming days and learn why these words are so dangerous.”

Even as no discussion of Israel or antisemitism was raised at the Wednesday gathering, top Democrats have continued to signal their hesitation regarding Mamdani’s approach to such issues, particularly his stance on the “intifada” slogan that he has defended repeatedly as an expression of Palestinian rights.

For his part, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), who did not attend the breakfast but is expected to meet with Mamdani in New York City on Friday, has said that the nominee’s comments about the phrase will be a part of their discussion — suggesting that his support is likely contingent on a change in tone.

Mamdani, who has faced questions about the phrase in other meetings this week, has privately indicated he plans to take a more calibrated stance with regard to the matter, a key point of tension as he now works to expand his coalition in a crowded race that includes Mayor Eric Adams and former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, both running as independents. 

The Democratic mayoral nominee said in a private meeting with business leaders earlier this week that he would “discourage” use of the phrase but still did not go so far as to condemn it himself, according to reports of the closed-door discussion on Tuesday.

Additional reporting contributed by JI senior congressional correspondent Marc Rod

Jewish Voice for Peace, a far-left anti-Israel advocacy group that has built a growing profile in the wake of Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, terror attacks, is pivoting to a new organizational structure that will soon allow it to engage more forcefully in electoral politics.

The group recently began the process of consolidating its membership and organizing in an affiliated but lesser-known political nonprofit called Jewish Voice for Peace Action, devoting the bulk of its resources to lobbying and political activities, such as supporting and opposing candidates that had not traditionally been a part of its core focus.

As a nonpartisan tax-exempt group, JVP, which has been at the forefront of campus anti-Israel protests and promotes efforts to divest from Israel, has been legally prohibited from taking sides in campaigns — a limitation the new structural change is designed to address.

The shift comes as the activist left has felt newly emboldened by Zohran Mamdani’s shocking victory in New York City’s Democratic mayoral primary in June, fueling debates over the ideological direction of the party as it gears up for next year’s midterms.

JVP Action, which recently changed its public name to Jewish Voice for Peace to match its sister organization, was an early supporter of Mamdani and has cited his outspoken opposition to Israel as a sign of evolving voter attitudes about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. 

“There is unprecedented, mass support for Palestinians. Our movement has already grown larger, and more quickly, than many of us thought possible. But it’s clear we have not begun to tap our full potential,” JVP writes in a detailed new page on its website about the decision-making behind its shift. “The U.S. government has not budged from its commitment to sponsor Israel’s genocide. Public polling and public displays of opposition alone will not shift U.S. policy. Our movement must contend for real power.”

JVP, which until now had been the primary home for the group’s organizing work, will become a “supporter-based” rather than a “membership-based” organization renamed JVP Leadership & Culture Lab — with a focus on educational training and arts and culture programming to help promote “anti-Zionist Jewish” advocacy, according to its tentative mission statement.

The change was approved in a recent membership vote and will be implemented by Oct. 15, according to a lengthy agenda from a virtual meeting last week shared with Jewish Insider.

JVP Action’s board, for its part, had already voted to change its name and structure independently of the recent all-members meeting, in anticipation of the organizational inversion.

During the meeting, a recording of which was reviewed by JI, one member raised a concern that the change could “lead to a deemphasis” on JVP’s involvement in “mobilizing of protests and direct action” in favor of “electoralism and support for progressive Democrats.” The member was reassured by leadership that such approaches are complementary and that electoral work is a “key tactic inside a set of tools” including “civil disobedience” and divestment campaigns.

In moving to now operate primarily as a political nonprofit, “the barriers between the work of JVP and JVP Action organizations will be removed,” JVP further explains on its website.

“This has long been a challenge, creating silos and firewalls in our respective work that keep us from drawing clear connections between the political, electoral, cultural and financial forces that uphold the U.S.-Israeli relationship,” the group adds.

JVP, which is closely aligned with American Muslims for Palestine, a leading pro-Palestinian advocacy group that has faced legal scrutiny for alleged ties to terror organizations such as Hamas, has significantly bolstered its fundraising in recent years. 

The organization raised a record $11 million in revenue from July 2023 to June 2024, according to its latest tax filing, far outpacing previous figures. It is not required to share the names of its donors as a 501(c)(3) to which contributions are tax-deductible.

As a so-called “dark money” group, JVP Action, a 501(c)(4) that is not tax-exempt, can also shield its contributors from the public, even as it engages in elections — unlike political action committees that must disclose their donors. 

JVP Action pulled in $800,000 in revenue from July 2022 to June 2023, its most recent tax filing shows, marking its strongest showing since it was established in 2020.

A smaller PAC affiliated with JVP raised only $133,000 last election cycle and does not seem to be part of the new restructuring. The Anti-Defamation League filed a complaint last year accusing the PAC of engaging in a pattern of misrepresentations that violate federal campaign finance law. 

In its efforts to stake out a more prominent role in elections, JVP Action is borrowing a page from one of its primary adversaries, the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC, which launched a super PAC as well as a political action committee in 2021 to wield its more considerable resources in congressional races where divisions over Israel have drawn significant outside spending.

“For a century, our opposition — the American Zionist establishment — has employed a long-term multipronged strategy to build U.S. support for Zionism and genocide and they have used all the tactics in the book,” JVP says in its recent meeting agenda. “They have a cultural strategy, an electoral strategy, a lobbying arm, youth organizations, mass movement organizations and funding vehicles.”

But the group argues that its opponents are “now experiencing a crack in their power.”

JVP Action, which has previously endorsed a range of Squad members in the House, has not indicated how it plans to approach the upcoming midterms in its more streamlined role.

The group did not return a request for comment on Wednesday, nor did JVP.

A poll released in February by The Jewish Majority, a pro-Israel research group in Washington, showed most Jewish Americans oppose the confrontational protest tactics used by JVP and regard anti-Zionist movements as antisemitic, among other findings.

Jonathan Schulman, the executive director of The Jewish Majority, said that JVP’s “decision to more vigorously engage in electoral politics signals their growing ambition to influence policy in ways that undermine Israel’s very existence as a Jewish state.”

“As they pursue this goal,” Schulman said in a statement to JI on Wednesday, “the pro-Israel community must make it clear to both the public and policymakers that the rhetoric and tactics of anti-Zionism undermine any prospects for a peaceful resolution to the conflict and contribute to the rise in violent attacks against Jews in America. JVP seeks to disprove any connection between anti-Zionism and antisemitism. We must expose that anti-Zionism is fundamentally opposed to peace.”

But with Mamdani’s resounding win over former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who had touted his staunch support for Israel and opposition to rising antisemitism in the primary, JVP now claims to see evidence its “movement work” is gaining traction.

“It is no longer popular for the U.S. to be sending endless weapons and funding to Israel,” the group said in its meeting agenda. “People are questioning the U.S.’ support for genocide and violence against the Palestinian people. Our movement is growing! And we still have a long way to go to break open this crack and end U.S. support for Israel.”

The political developments over the last week couldn’t send a more dispiriting message about the viability of the political center — in both parties. 

Last Tuesday, a self-proclaimed democratic socialist, Zohran Mamdani, who campaigned on a far-left agenda on issues ranging from the economy, crime and antisemitism, emerged as the Democratic standard-bearer for mayor of New York City. 

Over the weekend, Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC), one of the most pragmatic Republicans in the upper chamber, announced he wouldn’t be running for reelection after signaling he’d be one of two GOP votes against President Donald Trump’s “big, beautiful” budget reconciliation bill. His decision to retire came after Trump, in a Truth Social post, threatened to support a primary challenger. 

Tillis, notably, was the deciding Republican vote scuttling the nomination of interim D.C. U.S. Attorney Ed Martin for, among other issues, his associations with a Nazi sympathizer.

And on Monday, Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE), one of only three House Republicans who represents a district that former Vice President Kamala Harris won in 2024, formally announced his retirement, making it all the more likely a more-partisan Democratic lawmaker will succeed him in the seat. 

These are just the latest developments that underscore that moderation, pragmatism and bipartisanship are becoming endangered principles in a polarized political environment that rewards extremism and hot takes over thoughtful policymaking. 

The list of threats to the mainstream middle are all over: Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) is facing a serious threat from far-right Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in next year’s primary despite his long record of pragmatism and thoughtful policymaking as Texas’ senior senator. 

Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA), who reluctantly cast the tiebreaking vote to confirm Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as HHS secretary despite his record opposing vaccines, is nonetheless facing the likelihood of a tough renomination fight against state Treasurer John Fleming, a former GOP congressman.

Meanwhile, on the Democratic side, Mamdani’s surprise victory threatens to activate the left-wing grassroots in numerous congressional primaries. For a while, it looked like the moderates in the party held the upper hand after an embarrassing 2024 election where activists’ preferred policies badly hurt the Democratic ticket. But amid a DSA victory in New York, anti-ICE activism percolating again throughout the party and significant crowds showing up for anti-Trump “No Kings” protests last month, there are signs of an empowered progressive flank of the Democratic Party. 

The emergence of liberal lawmakers like Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT), who are accommodating out-of-the-mainstream views in the party, is an ominous sign of where the party could be headed. 

Murphy told NBC’s “Meet the Press” about Mamdani’s primary win: “He was authentic, right? I mean, yes, he’s got some views that are a little bit out of the conventional mainstream. But you know what? The traditional political pundits have no idea what’s actually mainstream in this country …  And so Democrats should learn from his victory.”

We could be close to a time where both parties’ populist, activist wings become the dominant forces in primaries, a trend that has been apparent in recent years and may be past the point of no return. That would be a blow to good governance and a win for performative politics and nonstop narcissism being the driving force in American elections.

Mainstream political and business leaders in New York City, including the organized Jewish community, will soon need to decide whether to coalesce against far-left presumed Democratic mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani — by rallying behind the candidacy of scandal-plagued Mayor Eric Adams despite his significant political baggage.

Adams, who is running as an independent in the race, appears to be the only alternative candidate capable of putting together a campaign rallying anti-socialists across the city to stop Mamdani. It won’t be easy, given Adams’ own low approval ratings and record of alleged corruption, but the makings of an anti-Mamdani coalition are there — at least on paper.

For Adams to win plurality support in a general election, it would require most Republicans to put partisanship aside and vote for Adams to stop the socialist, and hold onto most of the Black, Jewish voters and moderate Democratic voters who voted in large numbers for former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo in the primary. Adams benefits from the name recognition of incumbency, and the potential to receive support from outside centrist groups spending on his behalf.

Keeping a bipartisan coalition of that nature will be challenging, especially given the mayor’s own unpopular record. It would require a number of lucky breaks, from Cuomo opting not to run in the general election (he appears to be staying on the ballot without an active campaign) to Republicans effectively nudging their voters to back Adams when there’s a Republican already on the ballot. But if the campaign is less about Adams and more about stopping left-wing radicalism on crime, the economy and antisemitism, it’s not implausible to see a campaign coalescing around a “block socialism, vote Adams” type of message.

Here’s the political math: Adams would have to win over most New York City Republicans — President Donald Trump won 30% of the citywide vote in 2024 — while remaining competitive with Democrats and winning over independents who weren’t eligible to participate in the Democratic primary. 

An Emerson College poll conducted amid Mamdani’s surge in late May offers some empirical evidence that such a coalition has an outside shot at victory in a general election, with a broader, more-moderate electorate. The survey found that with Mamdani as the Democratic nominee, he leads with 35%, Republican Curtis Sliwa finishes with 16%, Adams holds 15% and independent Jim Walden tallied 6%. 

Put together the Sliwa, Walden and Adams votes, and you’ve got yourself a competitive race. 

There’s already a lot of rumbling that Trump administration officials, eager to see Sliwa off the ballot, are looking at offering him a job in the administration to help nudge GOP voters into the Adams column to stop Mamdani. But Sliwa has given every indication so far that he’s not dropping out, which would force Republican leaders to more subtly nudge GOP partisans towards Adams. 

The big red flag for anti-Mamdani moderates? Adams’ favorability rating in the same poll was a dismal 19%, with 69% viewing him unfavorably. That said, given the changed nature of the contest, the perception of Adams could change amid the shifting strategic environment. He’s already running a more energetic campaign than Cuomo did in the primary. (And it’s a safer bet to hope Adams’ numbers improve as an anti-Mamdani vehicle than betting on a total outsider with minimal name ID to play that role, as a few business leaders have suggested.)

There is some precedent for mainstream forces working to block a far-left or far-right candidate after an unexpected primary outcome. One of the most recent examples is socialist India Walton’s out-of-nowhere upset against Buffalo Mayor Byron Brown in a 2021 Democratic primary. Many analysts attributed her victory to a left-wing surge; it turned out to be a mirage of a low-turnout election before a broader array of voters really had a chance to scrutinize her record and background. Brown easily won the general election — as a write-in candidate.

There’s also former Sen. Joe Lieberman winning as an independent in 2006 after losing the Democratic primary, with Republicans signaling to their voters to back the senator over the also-ran GOP nominee on the ballot. And there’s the 1991 Louisiana governor’s election where scandal-plagued Democratic Gov. Edwin Edwards beat David Duke, whom Republican voters knowingly nominated. Edwards’ slogan? “Vote for the Crook. It’s Important.”

To be sure, any anti-Mamdani effort will be something of a long shot. Mamdani is now winning support from elected New York Democratic leaders all too willing to accommodate his radical record, and he generated strong turnout in the primary that underscores his natural charisma and strength as a politician. He’s got more starpower than many of the other aforementioned extreme nominees.

But if Jewish leaders believe Mamdani would pose a serious threat to Jewish life and safety in the city if elected, you’d expect they would make every effort to stop his candidacy — especially since there’s a chance, albeit a small one, that his momentum could be stunted as his record draws closer attention.

Republican campaign operatives say they intend to tie vulnerable Democratic candidates to Zohran Mamdani, the presumed winner of New York City’s Democratic mayoral primary, over his far-left policies.

Mamdani’s victory on Tuesday evening was met with surprise and intrigue within GOP campaign circles, with operatives saying his win provides an opening to force Democratic candidates to say on-record if they align with the 33-year-old democratic socialist’s vision for the nation’s biggest city and long history of anti-Israel activism. GOP operatives told Jewish Insider they expect Mamdani to prominently feature in future ads and broader messaging targeting Democrats nationwide. 

“Socialist Zohran Mamdani has demonstrated he’s proudly antisemitic and anti-Israel, supports criminals over law-abiding citizens, and wants to crush New Yorkers with even higher costs. Mamdani is dangerously wrong, and Republicans will make sure that every single voter remembers that House Democrats are still too cowardly to condemn him,” Maureen O’Toole, a spokeswoman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, the House Republicans’ campaign arm, told JI.

The NRCC has already seized on Mamdani’s candidacy to attack vulnerable swing district New York Democratic Reps. Laura Gillen and Tom Suozzi — both of whom distanced themselves from Mamdani on Wednesday.

“If Republicans, in such a public fashion, nominated someone so fringe and so extreme and so outside of the mainstream, there would be calls for condemnation. There would be calls for Republicans to denounce them,” a GOP campaign official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said of how the party will respond to Mamdani’s political ascent. “We’d like there to be calls to separate themselves from Democrats.”

Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT), who chaired the National Republican Senatorial Committee last cycle, said Republicans should amplify Mamdani as the new face of the Democratic Party. 

“It’s a reflection of how crazy the Democrats have become that they would nominate, the left would nominate that kind of candidate. It’s a frightening development,” Daines told JI. 

Daines’ view is shared by several senior GOP campaign operatives, all of whom believe Mamdani can be presented to voters as the new figurehead of the Democratic Party. 

“From a political standpoint, this takes the party’s most polarizing progressive and puts them on a national stage. It’s a big opportunity for us. There’s gonna be massive ramifications on the national level. It’s a real gift for Republicans,” a longtime GOP campaign operative told JI.

Officials familiar with GOP strategy in House and Senate races predicted Suozzi, Gillen and Reps. Pat Ryan (D-NY), Josh Riley (D-NY) and Nellie Pou (D-NJ) would be targeted with ads tying them to Mamdani, given the proximity of each of their districts to the city. 

Republicans are also likely to single out Minnesota Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan, who is running to replace retiring Sen. Tina Smith (D-MN), and Adbul El-Sayed, a candidate running for the Democratic nomination to replace outgoing Sen. Gary Peters (D-MI), as being aligned with Mamdani on policy. 

“I think Democrats have a real issue on their hands. What will we be talking about for the remainder of this New York election and going into the next year? We’ll be asking if a socialist can lead the Democrat Party, if a socialist can be the next face of the party,” a Republican official involved in Senate races said.

“We’re going to be profiling these candidates like they’re AOC and Ilhan Omar, people that align more closely with Mamdani. We’re not going to be talking about the moderates in the Democrat Party anymore, we’re not even talking about Democrat leadership,” the official said. “We’re going to talk about the most radical and fringe members of the party. I think you’re going to see some lifeblood pumped into the campaigns of some Republicans as a result.”

In his campaign for New York City mayor, Zohran Mamdani, a far-left Queens state assemblyman polling in second place behind former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, has indicated he would not visit Israel if he is elected, saying he does not believe that such a trip is necessary “to stand up for Jewish New Yorkers.”

“I believe that to stand up for Jewish New Yorkers means that you actually meet Jewish New Yorkers wherever they may be, be it at their synagogues and temples or their homes or on the subway platform or at a park, wherever it may be,” Mamdani, a fierce critic of Israel, reiterated in comments at a mayoral forum hosted by several progressive Jewish groups on Sunday night.

By contrast, in a 2020 Zoom discussion with the Adalah Justice Project, a pro-Palestinian advocacy group, Mamdani said he was planning to organize a trip to the Palestinian territories, suggesting that he would make an exception for an issue he has upheld as one of his top causes during his tenure in Albany.

“Once COVID is over, I am planning on finding a way to coordinate a trip with other legislators to Palestine,” Mamdani said at the time. “We’ll figure that one out. I’ll probably get to the border and get turned away, but at the very least I’m going to organize it and go myself.”

It is unclear if Mamdani organized such a trip. His campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Monday.

The comments, however, broadly underscore how Mamdani’s past remarks on the Israel-Palestinian conflict have become a source of growing tension as he confronts basic questions on the issue during his mayoral campaign. 

Several of Mamdani’s Democratic opponents in the June 24 primary have said they would visit Israel if elected — in keeping with a long-standing tradition for New York City mayors who represent the largest Jewish community outside of Israel. Cuomo, who is leading the primary, has vowed it would be his first trip abroad, as have other candidates.

Mamdani, for his part, has suggested he would not visit any foreign country as mayor, saying he would instead “stay in New York City,” as he confirmed at the first mayoral debate last week. “My plans are to address New Yorkers across the five boroughs and focus on that,” he said.

During the mayoral forum on Sunday evening, he also raised doubts about whether he would be able to enter Israel at all, citing Israeli legislation barring non-citizen backers of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement from visiting the Jewish state.

Despite his long-standing support for BDS, Mamdani, who has faced scrutiny for declining to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, did not provide a direct answer about whether he would continue to endorse the movement as mayor when asked at the forum, saying only that he would seek to “bring New York City back into” compliance with international law.

“I think ultimately, the focus of our mayor should be on the issues of New York City at hand,” he insisted, even as he had argued in the Zoom conversation five years ago that BDS is a salient “local” issue and said that mayoral candidates should be pressured to join the movement to boycott Israel.

Elsewhere in that discussion, Mamdani voiced hostility to resolutions in the state Legislature to “disavow BDS” or “stand in solidarity with Israel,” which he dismissed as promoting Israeli interests. 

“They use all of these hasbara propaganda talking points in the resolutions,” Mamdani said, using the Hebrew word for Israeli public diplomacy. “That is one place to fight is to stop such resolutions from being passed, to pass different kinds of resolutions.”

Mamdani has faced scrutiny for not signing on to several resolutions commemorating the Holocaust and honoring Israel during his tenure in office. He has defended his decision as consistent with what he now describes as a general policy against joining any such measures.

“In January, I told my Assembly staff not to co-sponsor any resolutions that were emailed to our office,” Mamdani said in a video last month. “It had nothing to do with the content of the resolution. But I understand this has caused pain and confusion for many.”

He said he had “voted every year for the Holocaust Remembrance Day Resolution, including this year, to honor the more than 6 million Jewish people murdered by the Nazis.”

President Donald Trump announced his intention to nominate far-right commentator Paul Ingrassia to head the agency tasked with rooting out corruption and protecting whistleblowers in the federal government. 

Ingrassia, 29, currently serves as the White House liaison for the Department of Homeland Security. He briefly served as the White House liaison to the Department of Justice early in Trump’s second term, but was reassigned after clashing with the DOJ’s chief of staff after urging the president to hire only individuals who exhibited what Ingrassia called “exceptional loyalty,” according to ABC News. 

In Trump’s post on Truth Social announcing Ingrassia’s nomination to head the Office of Special Counsel, an independent federal agency tasked with investigating and prosecuting office government and political corruption, the president called him a “highly respected attorney, writer, and Constitutional scholar.”

Ingrassia has trafficked in a number of conspiracy theories, as have several other controversial administration appointees, including Department of Defense Press Secretary Kingsley Wilson and acting Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy Darren Beattie. 

On Oct. 7, 2023, as the Hamas attacks were still underway, Ingrassia posted on X calling illegal immigration to the U.S. “comparable to the attack on Israel,” writing, “The amount of energy everyone has put into condemning Hamas (and prior to that, the Ukraine conflict) over the past 24 hours should be the same amount of energy we put into condemning our wide open border, which is a war comparable to the attack on Israel in terms of bloodshed — but made worse by the fact that it’s occurring in our very own backyard. We shouldn’t be beating the war drum, however tragic the events may be overseas, until we resolve our domestic problems first.” 

He wrote three days later that the U.S. “should not be committing any foreign aid (as well as military presence) whatsoever to any country – Israel, Ukraine, Taiwan, NATO, etc. – until we secure our borders and get a sensible handle over our border crisis. Practically speaking, this will take several years (at least) to get under control. In the meantime: no immigration, no foreign aid, troops, equipment, or anything, period.” 

On Oct. 12, 2023, responding to a post alleging to uncover DNA sequences of “Canaanites, Israelites [and] Judahites,” Ingrassia wrote, “This is further evidence that Israel/Palestine is a deeply complex region of the world with a complicated history, that most Americans don’t adequately understand, nor could be expected to understand.” 

In that post, he bashed former National Security Advisor John Bolton, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), former Vice President Mike Pence and former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley, calling them “Warmongering Troglodytes” and saying the alleged DNA evidence was “further reason to dismiss the dangerous and reckless calls” made by these officials to strike Gaza. 

On Oct. 15, just days after the attacks, Ingrassia wrote, “I think we could all admit at this stage that Israel/Palestine, much like Ukraine before it, and BLM before that, and covid/vaccine before that, was yet another psyop.”

A year later, on Oct. 3, 2024, he posted that there were no funds for hurricane relief because “we’re too busy stuffing the pockets of Zelenskyy and Netanyahu. What a disgrace our government is! Truly the enemy of the people.”

Ingrassia has further associated himself with white nationalists and antisemites, including Nick Fuentes and Kanye West, now known as Ye, posting a Substack in April 2023 titled “Free Nick Fuentes.” 

In the post, he applauded the social media platform X for restoring certain accounts including that of far-right provocateur Laura Loomer and alleged sex trafficker Andrew Tate, but argued that it should go further to restore Fuentes’ and Ye’s then-banned accounts: “Notably, the accounts of once banned high-profile users such as Donald Trump, Andrew Tate, Roger Stone, and Laura Loomer have been reinstated with apparent impunity to use the platform as they please. But for every Trump and Tate, there remains the still banned Fuentes and Ye.”

The attorney has defended Tate and his brother — whom British authorities charged on Wednesday with rape, human trafficking and assault — saying in 2023 that the two “have become public enemies number one and two in the eyes of the Matrix, the deep state, and the satanic elite that attempt to systematically program and oppress all men from womb-to-tomb.”

Prior to joining the administration, Ingrassia was a regular contributor to the Gateway Pundit, a website known for publishing falsehoods and conspiracy theories. He wrote articles on the site falsely alleging Haley was ineligible to run for president in 2024 because she did not qualify as a U.S. citizen, arguing civil rights laws were never intended to protect LGBTQ persons and calling former President Joe Biden’s victory in 2020 “beyond all doubt fraudulent,” among others.

Ingrassia has repeatedly used the term “globalists” to describe Jewish public figures, including Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-NV), Michigan Senate candidate Sandy Pensler and hedge fund manager Paul Singer.

Last year, following an appearance on Steve Bannon’s War Room show, Ingrassia wrote on X, “Discussed a very important topic this morning on War Room about how some RINO members — like @RepGallagher — of the House, many with dark money ties to notorious anti Trump billionaire globalist, Paul Singer, are actively working behind the scenes to turnover House control to Democratic hands with early retirements and thus pass legislation to remove President Trump from the ballot on bogus 14th Amendment grounds.”

Candace Owens, a far-right pundit who has frequently broadcast antisemitic commentary, is no longer attending an event sponsored by the Trump campaign later this week, a source familiar with the event confirmed to Jewish Insider on Tuesday — after her scheduled participation faced backlash from conservative critics and Jewish allies of the former president.

Owens, 34, had been scheduled to appear with Donald Trump Jr. on Friday in Nashville, Tenn., for an event that will coincide with the annual Bitcoin Conference, according to an online promotional flier that listed her as a guest of the event until Tuesday afternoon, when her name was suddenly removed.

The inclusion of Owens — who has engaged in Holocaust denial and amplified blood libel in her commentary — had become a headache for former President Donald Trump on Tuesday, as his campaign privately faced pressure to remove her from the event.

Shabbos Kestenbaum, a recent Harvard graduate who voiced support for Trump’s policies to combat antisemitism during a speech at the Republican convention in Milwaukee last week, told JI earlier on Tuesday that Owens “is not merely intellectually challenged, but a Hitler-loving antisemite who should play no role in normative politics or the Republican Party.”

“It is simply outrageous, inexcusable, and deeply antisemitic that anyone in Trump’s orbit would associate with her,” Kestenbaum, who until recently identified as a progressive Democrat, told JI, adding that he “will continue to call out the far left and the far right for their antisemitism.”

In recent months, Owens has delivered a string of virulently antisemitic statements on Jews, Israel and the Holocaust. In one commentary on YouTube earlier this month, she called Holocaust education a form of Soviet indoctrination while also casting doubt on infamous Nazi doctor Josef Mengele’s experiments at Auschwitz, which she dismissed as “bizarre propaganda.”

In response to backlash over her comments, Owens shot back at what she called the “Zionist media” for trying to censor her. “The reason why this particular episode is so detrimental to Zionism,” she wrote on X, “is because they have polluted American minds to believe that we must defend Israel out of morality and the evils of the Holocaust.”

“It is inexplicable to me how you stand by Israel, stand against antisemitism, and stand with the execrable Candace Owens,” Danielle Pletka, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, said in an email to JI. “She is a Holocaust denier, an antisemite, and a loathsome bigot.”

Owens has also blamed rising antisemitism on “political Jews,” alleged that “secret Jewish gangs” are terrorizing Hollywood, liked a tweet claiming that Jews are “drunk on Christian blood” and defended Nick Fuentes, a prominent white nationalist and Holocaust denier.  

John Podhoretz, the editor of Commentary and a conservative critic of Trump, said the Owens event presented what he viewed as the campaign’s “first serious internal test” after the GOP convention in Milwaukee last week, where several speakers who have advanced antisemitic rhetoric were elevated to prime-time roles.

“That is, whether or not Candace Owens ends up on that stage on Friday,” he said in an interview with JI. “If she does, then it will demonstrate that it is a far less disciplined and far more chaotic effort and organization than it appears to have been over the last six or seven months, and morally, will represent an absolutely horrific stain,” which be said would be “completely self-inflicted.”

In an email to JI on Tuesday afternoon, Mitchell Jackson, who claimed to be a spokesperson for Owens, said it “was never announced Candace was hosting an event with the” Trump campaign. 

While Owens has long drawn controversy for promoting conspiracy theories, she has more recently faced criticism for advancing antisemitic commentary in the wake of Hamas’ Oct. 7 attacks.

In March, Ben Shapiro’s Daily Wire announced that it had ended its relationship with Owens, who had served as a weekday host for the conservative media outlet.