Goldman vs. Lander: The Democrats’ Emerging Fault Line
A Primary About Israel and How to Deal With the Fringe of the Democratic Party
Abstract In the race for New York’s 10th District, Dan Goldman and Brad Lander agree on almost everything except Israel. From Lander’s quiet divestment of Israel Bonds to the proposal by his ally Zohran Mamdani to evict the Technion from New York, this primary is a referendum on whether the Democratic Party will remain a reliable ally or trade long-term stability for short-term activist approval. While Goldman markets himself as the pro-Israel alternative, his shifting rhetoric—calibrated to distance himself from an embattled Netanyahu and his flat refusal to fund the current war—is a reactive calculation that fails to address the permanent security threats that will remain long after “Bibi” leaves the stage.
Introduction
In politics, being genuine is everything. One of the clearest examples in modern American politics came during George W. Bush’s first presidential campaign when he was asked to name his favorite political philosopher. Bush answered: “Jesus Christ.” The answer was mocked by some, but it worked because it felt consistent with the man’s world view. He did not sound like a consultant had handed him a line; he sounded like himself.
That is the standard voters often use, especially on moral and foreign policy questions. They may forgive disagreement; they rarely forgive calculation. Authenticity is coherence. A politician is most convincing when the position sounds like something they would say regardless of the audience.
This and a meaningful divide about U.S. relations with Israel are the reasons why the Democratic primary in New York’s 10th Congressional District has become more important than an ordinary House race.
The Contrast in Models
Goldman represents the older model: support for Israel’s security and opposition to BDS, combined with criticism of particular policies. Lander represents a newer model: greater willingness to condition aid and an increasing comfort with coalitions that include anti-Zionist activists.
My View: While Goldman’s positions align more closely with mine, I find neither candidate particularly genuine. I find Lander fairly dangerous due to the company he keeps and the precedents he sets.
The Israel Bonds & Technion Controversy
As City Comptroller, Lander oversaw the elimination of roughly $40 million in Israel Bonds from city pensions by early 2025. While he defends this as a “fiduciary” decision, the timing suggests political ambition. In 2016, Lander called the BDS movement “insidious.” His recent moves—praised by divestment groups -- suggest a shift driven by the changing winds of the progressive left rather than a change in Mideast reality.
Furthermore, Lander’s mayoral choice, Zohran Mamdani, has advocated for ending the partnership between Cornell University and Israel’s Technion University, suggesting New York should effectively evict the Israeli institution from its Roosevelt Island campus. Voters deserve a congressman who opposes such attempts to isolate world-class research institutions from our economy.
The “Bibi” and Iran War Red Herrings
Both candidates use Benjamin Netanyahu as a political “fig leaf.” Criticizing “Bibi” is easy, but it ignores the fundamental problem: Israel lacks a receptive peace partner. The same security challenges -- Iranian proxies, Hezbollah, and Hamas -- will persist long after Netanyahu.
There is an election this year, and the Jerusalem Post reported today (April 24, 2026) that Netanyahu has revealed a diagnosis of early-stage prostate cancer. When people focus solely on him, I ask: “What do you think of Naftali Bennett or Benny Gantz?” I usually get a blank stare, proving that much of the “anti-Bibi” rhetoric is a distraction from the harder reality of Israel’s survival.
Goldman’s Equivocation: Goldman recently stated he will vote against any additional money for the current war with Iran over his opposition to the war and Netanyahu. While I share qualms about the rationale for the war and wish the focus were on regime change to protect the Iranian people, Goldman’s pronouncement is neither useful nor genuine. It is a reactive attempt to avoid a primary surge by his opponents, not an attempt to explain and move forward constructive policy.
The Authenticity Gap
The primary in NY-10 isn’t just a clash of policies; it is a study in the erosion of political sincerity. In a 1999 debate, when asked to name his favorite political philosopher, George W. Bush famously answered, “Jesus Christ,” adding: “He changed my heart.” When pushed to explain further, he simply stated, “If they don’t know, it’s going to be hard to explain.” Whether you agreed with his theology or not, the answer resonated because it was unvarnished and consistent with his character. It wasn’t a “consultant-approved” line; it was a glimpse into a conviction that existed regardless of the audience.
In NY-10, we see the opposite.
Brad Lander performs a delicate dance, phasing out $40 million in Israel Bonds under the dry veil of “fiduciary duty” while simultaneously aligning with activists like Zohran Mamdani who seek to uproot Israeli institutions from New York soil. It is a calculated pivot to satisfy a rising progressive base without technically “endorsing” BDS.
Dan Goldman, meanwhile, offers a reactive brand of support. His sudden refusal to fund the current war effort against the Iranian regime -- despite Iran’s role as the primary architect of regional instability -- smacks of political survival rather than strategic clarity.
Both men are essentially “reading the room” rather than leading it. In an era where voters crave the “Jesus Christ” level of authenticity—a position held because it is actually in one’s heart -- NY-10 is being offered two versions of the same political hedging. Lander panders to the fringe of the party and Goldman equivocates to avoid a primary surge. Neither is speaking from a place of settled, genuine conviction.
The Strategic Danger
Lander’s approach—conditioning aid and divesting from bonds—does not empower moderates; it emboldens adversaries. It signals to Iran and its proxies that international pressure can successfully decouple Israel from its strongest ally.
Goldman remains the favorite due to incumbency, but a Lander victory would signal that the anti-Israel wing of the party has moved from protest to institutional power. This primary is about whether the Democratic Party still knows the difference between criticizing an ally and helping to isolate one.
Authors Note: Consider the 90-day-free coupon for access to additional articles on policy, politics and personal finance.