Brad Lander endorses anti-Israel progressive candidate who hesitated to condemn synagogue terror attack

Lander, who is Jewish and has described himself as a Zionist, has increasingly aligned himself with the party’s progressive wing on Israel.

By Corey Walker, The Algemeiner

Brad Lander, the New York Democrat who recently toppled US Rep. Dan Goldman in a closely watched House primary, is drawing scrutiny after endorsing Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed, a progressive whose comments about Israel have elicited outrage from the Jewish community.

Lander announced his endorsement as El-Sayed battles Rep. Haley Stevens (D-MI) in one of the nation’s most consequential Senate primaries — a race increasingly viewed as a proxy fight over the future of the Democratic Party’s foreign policy, particularly its relationship with Israel.

“We need Abdul in the Senate to end the reign of billionaires and special interests, so Congress can deliver for working people,” Lander wrote on X.

“Abdul and I will also be partners in resetting US foreign policy to achieve a just peace for Palestinians and Israelis, beginning by ending US military aid to Israel while it violates international law and Palestinian human rights. We share the belief that the rights and safety of Jewish and Muslim people are inextricably intertwined, from the Midwest to Midtown to the Middle East.”

The endorsement comes days after El-Sayed, in an interview, agreed with the suggestion that Democratic politicians who support Israel do so because of money, saying such support is incompatible “if you’re a Democrat and you believe in human rights.”

Critics said the comments echoed longstanding antisemitic tropes attributing pro-Israel positions among elected officials to financial influence.

Jewish advocacy groups and pro-Israel Democrats have argued that such rhetoric dismisses decades of bipartisan backing for Israel rooted in shared democratic values, security cooperation, and US strategic interests in the Middle East, and risks reinforcing harmful stereotypes.

Lander, who is Jewish and has described himself as a Zionist, has increasingly aligned himself with the party’s progressive wing on Israel.

While affirming Israel’s existence, he has opposed continued US military aid under current conditions and accused the Jewish state of “genocide” during the war in Gaza — a position many analysts believe helped him defeat Goldman, a staunchly pro-Israel incumbent, in their primary.

El-Sayed has gone further, establishing himself as one of the party’s most strident critics of Israel.

Beyond his own “genocide” accusations, he has questioned whether progressive politics and Zionism are compatible, telling CNN in a recent interview:

“Every definition of a Jewish state ends up in some articulation of illiberal values, every single one.”

El-Sayed also sparked outrage in March after hesitating to condemn a terrorist attack at a Michigan synagogue that included an attempted mass killing of Jewish children.

According to reports, he expressed concern in private meetings that condemning the attack would offend potential voters sympathetic to Hezbollah, the Iran-backed terrorist group.

He also reportedly hesitated to comment on the US-Israeli strikes that killed Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in February, citing support for Khamenei among some of his prospective constituents.

Stevens, by contrast, has maintained strong support for the US-Israel alliance, arguing Democrats can back both Israel’s right to defend itself and humanitarian assistance for Palestinians.

The primary is widely seen as a national test of whether the party’s traditional pro-Israel coalition can withstand mounting pressure from its progressive base.

For many Jewish Democrats, Lander’s endorsement represents another sign of the party’s shifting internal politics.

While Democratic support for Israel has historically been broad and bipartisan, recent election cycles have exposed widening divisions over military aid, the Gaza conflict, and the role of progressive activists in shaping the party’s foreign policy agenda — divisions expected to remain a defining fault line, with implications for both the party’s electoral coalition and the future of the US-Israel relationship.