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 latest Democratic primary battle between the left and center where Israel has emerged as a point of division is playing out in a special House election in Tucson, Ariz., later this month, as five candidates vie to replace former longtime Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), who died in March.

The July 15 primary in Arizona’s dependably blue 7th Congressional District has kept a relatively low profile, even as it features ideological tensions over Middle East policy that could hold implications for the party’s increasingly fractious approach to Israel in the lead-up to next year’s midterm elections.

Adelita Grijalva, 54, a former Pima County supervisor, is viewed as the heavy favorite to win the seat in what is expected to be a low-turnout race, owing in part to her significant name recognition in the area represented by her late father for over two decades. 

She has also consolidated endorsements from top establishment Democrats, including Sens. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) and Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), while securing the backing of progressive leaders such as Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), among other high-profile critics of Israel in Congress.

But her limited record of commentary on Israel has raised questions among pro-Israel activists rallying behind one of Grijalva’s chief primary rivals, Daniel Hernandez, a former state lawmaker who identifies as a pro-Israel progressive and claims support from Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY) and the political arm of Democratic Majority for Israel.

The 35-year-old Hernandez, recently named the board chair of the Zionist LGTBQ organization A Wider Bridge, has pitched himself as a “consistent champion” of pro-Israel causes, in contrast with the late Grijalva, who during his long tenure embraced hostile positions toward Israel — most prominently when he joined a small handful of House Democrats to oppose additional funding for Israel’s Iron Dome missile-defense system in 2021.

Like her father, the younger Grijalva appears more skeptical of Israel amid its war in Gaza, even as she has yet to publicly clarify her own views on a range of key issues, such as continued U.S. security aid to Israel, which has faced vocal resistance from some of her supporters on the left.

Grijalva called for a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas 10 days after the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks. In her role as a county supervisor, she also reluctantly voted for a resolution that condemned Hamas, while voicing frustration that she “couldn’t talk about peace and humanitarian aid” for Gaza.

More recently, Grijalva has struggled to clearly articulate her approach to Israel and the broader Middle East, suggesting in a recent discussion with a progressive organization that speaking candidly about her views could draw outside spending from pro-Israel advocacy groups such as AIPAC, which has targeted Israel critics in Democratic primaries, into the race.

“The frustration for me, and it will always be, I think, is that there were some things that my dad could get away with that a lot of these organizations that come in and try to influence races and stuff, he predated them,” Grijalva explained during a Zoom call in May with Progressive Democrats of America, an anti-Israel group that is backing her campaign.

Her father, who died at 77, “was like this mountain in the middle, like no one’s moving him one way or the other,” she continued on the call, some portions of which were recently reviewed by Jewish Insider. “But I do think that in this environment, when we are not in normal times and you can’t negotiate with terrorists, there is a difference here, where walking in, I know it’s going to be a different experience for me than it was for my dad.”

A spokesperson for AIPAC said on Wednesday that the group is “not involved” in the race. DMFI PAC, which has also engaged in several House primaries in recent cycles, has so far refrained from investing in the race, despite backing Hernandez. The group did not respond to a request for comment about its plans for the final days of the election, now less than two weeks away.

Elsewhere in the Zoom discussion, Grijalva dodged a question about her position on sending U.S. arms to Israel amid its war against Hamas in Gaza, which she called an “atrocity,” while echoing a section on her campaign site calling for “an immediate release of the remaining hostages in Hamas captivity” and “rapid and complete restoration of humanitarian aid into the Gaza Strip” to set “the foundation for a two-state solution.”

“The surest way to bring them home, defeat Hamas and begin the process of rebuilding Gaza for the Palestinian people,” Grijalva said on the call, “is through a long-term, just and peaceful resolution, which the United States has a responsibility to work towards.”

Still, she suggested that U.S. involvement in the ongoing conflict “has not been helpful at all,” and vaguely argued that “the United States has been a part of interfering with this process and trying to aid in different ways.”

Pro-Israel activists in Arizona, none of whom would agree to speak on the record over concerns of antagonizing a likely future member of Congress, have voiced apprehension about Grijalva’s comments on Middle East policy, pointing to a lack of general clarity on major issues.

During a Zoom conversation this week with the Arizona Democratic Party Jewish Caucus, for example, Grijalva was asked about her “understanding of the term ‘intifada,’” a recent subject of heated debate as Zohran Mamdani, the far-left Democratic nominee for mayor of New York City, has faced backlash for doubling down on defending calls to “globalize” the Palestinian uprisings against Israel — which critics have interpreted as stoking violence against Jews.

Grijalva, who has condemned recent antisemitic attacks, indicated that she was unfamiliar with the term, according to a brief recording of the Zoom discussion shared with JI on Wednesday. “I don’t really know in this case what that means,” she said in response.

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

Limited public polling on the primary has shown Grijalva leading the field, which includes Deja Foxx, a 25-year-old political influencer who says she has raised $500,000 as her campaign has continued to gain some traction. On Wednesday, Foxx notched an endorsement from David Hogg’s political action group, which said “she has translated her story to represent a new vision of generational change that speaks truth to” President Donald Trump’s “cruel policies.”

An internal poll commissioned by Foxx’s campaign and publicized earlier this week reportedly showed her in second place behind Grijalva with 35%, marking a major improvement over her standing in a previous survey, released in April, where she claimed 5% of the vote. 

Foxx has rarely addressed developments in the Middle East, but she has indicated that she would be among the more outspoken critics of Israel if elected. In a video she shared on social media late last month, Foxx is seen addressing voters about the war in Gaza, arguing that “this is the issue that has politicized my entire generation.”

“We have watched devastation unfold on our screens as we have come of age,” she said in her remarks, while adding, “I want to be really clear that in one of the richest countries in the world, it is unconscionable that we send money abroad for weapons that disproportionately hurt women and children and families when families right here do not have food or insurance or housing.”

Jose Malvido Jr., a longshot candidate who has appeared in debates, has for his part repeatedly called Israel’s military actions in Gaza a “genocide,” an accusation his opponents have at least publicly avoided.

In perhaps a rare moment of unity on Middle East policy, both Grijalva and Hernandez have suggested that they would support an impeachment inquiry on Trump’s unilateral decision to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities last month. Foxx forcefully condemned the attacks, saying that the U.S. “should not be dragged into another endless war by a reality TV president.”

Mike Noble, a pollster and political analyst in Arizona, said Grijalva is “in the driver’s seat” as the primary enters its final stretch, noting it is “her race to lose.” Foxx, he speculated, could potentially peel support from Grijalva’s progressive base, but said it is unlikely that even a split vote would amount to a meaningful change in the outcome. “I’m less bullish on Hernandez,” he told JI, even as he acknowledged that the former state lawmaker could “pull off some votes.”

Grijalva’s ambiguous comments addressing Israel, meanwhile, do not appear to have tangibly stunted her path to the nomination — particularly as recent political developments have shown that embracing firm pro-Israel positions may no longer be as strong a prerequisite for a winning Democratic campaign amid declining voter sympathy for the Jewish state.

Pro-Israel activists are also preparing for a Grijalva victory, while continuing to voice reservations over the direction she will take on key Middle East policy issues if she is elected to succeed her father in the House. 

No such questions surround Hernandez, said Alma Hernandez, his sister and a top campaign surrogate, who is an outspoken defender of Israel in the state Legislature. 

“His record speaks for itself,” she told JI, saying that he “will always fight for what’s right and bring principled leadership to Congress.”

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.