By Jonathan S. Tobin
(JNS) — There was a time when Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) could be counted on as a stalwart defender of the Jewish state. I know this because I heard him speak at a street-corner, pro-Israel demonstration across from the United Nations in the late 1980s. Those were during the dark days of the First Intifada, when it was becoming clear that fashionable liberal political opinion started turning on Israel as it coped with violent Palestinian demonstrations within and around its borders. Even though The New York Times editorial page and other outlets popular in his Manhattan constituency were denouncing Jerusalem’s efforts to cope with the situation, Nadler turned up to express his solidarity.
That was a long time ago. But as the 78-year-old announced this week that he won’t run for a 17th term in Congress, it is difficult to square the sentiments I heard from him that day with the political figure he eventually became.
That was made obvious in July when, rather than showing up to support the Jewish state, he joined a protest against Israel’s just war of self-defense, outside the Israeli consulate in New York City, organized by the viciously anti-Israel group T’ruah.
Nadler is best known to most Americans because of his four years as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee from 2019 to 2023 and for stage-managing two separate impeachments of President Donald Trump. A knee-jerk opposition to Trump and the Republicans on every conceivable issue played well among Democrats, especially at home on Manhattan’s Upper West Side. He’s even garnering applause from liberal pundits for his retirement announcement because of his recognition that his party’s tradition, in which geriatrics hold onto power at the expense of younger people, and, as with the example of President Joe Biden, past the point where they are competent, is something that needs to end.
His relinquishing of a safe, deep-blue House seat where the GOP barely exists has set off a feeding frenzy among Democratic politicians and celebrities, including Chelsea Clinton, eager to succeed him. But the graceful manner in which he is exiting office may be the best thing that can be said about the end of his career. While he may have been willing to stand up for Israel three and a half decades ago, at the moment of greatest peril for American Jewry and the Jewish state, he has deserted their cause.
In the two years since the Hamas-led Palestinian attacks on Israeli communities on Oct. 7, 2023, Nadler has provided a troubling example of how prominent liberal Democrats have chosen to side with the Jewish state’s foes.
He showed that his priority was staying in sync with the leftist base of his party and not in defending Jews during the unprecedented surge in antisemitism post-Oct. 7. He defended prominent Jew-haters like Mahmoud Khalil, organizer of the pro-Hamas mobs at Columbia University, in his own district. He opposed administration efforts to force Columbia and other universities to end their toleration and encouragement of antisemitism on their campuses. And, even as he declared himself to still be a supporter of Israel, he joined those who were mainstreaming Hamas propaganda about the current war, as well as echoing the blood libels about the Jewish state and its government being guilty of mass slaughter and war crimes, even supporting an arms embargo on it.
On top of that, this summer Nadler endorsed New York state assemblyman Zohran Mamdani, a Democratic Socialist and virulent antisemite, after he won the Democratic mayoral primary in June.
Why did Nadler go down this path?
Unlike many of his colleagues in the current Democratic caucus, Nadler had tried, as The New York Times noted, “to stake out space for a politics that was both pro-Israel and progressive.” While that may have worked in an earlier era when talk of a bipartisan pro-Israel consensus was more descriptive than aspirational, Nadler’s career arc demonstrates that the two categories are no longer compatible. In fact, they are now mutually exclusive.
Nadler and others blame this on Israel and its prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. Of course, the leader of the Jewish state and its government are not exempt from criticism; however, what’s happened within the Democratic Party has very little to do with the actions of either. The so-called explanation for their alienation is their becoming disillusioned with Israeli policies. But the truth is that they are following the lead of progressives who have always been against Israel’s existence. That is the product of the left’s embrace of the toxic myths of critical race theory, intersectionality and settler-colonialism that branded Israel and Jews as “white oppressors,” who are always in the wrong and must therefore be brought down.
As we saw in the days, weeks and months since Oct. 7, the rationale of those opposed to Israel’s just war to eradicate Hamas had more to do with a belief that Israel must simply accept the continued presence on its southern border of an Islamist terrorist entity pledged to repeat those unspeakable atrocities. Their criticisms of efforts by the Jewish state to root out these genocidal murderers were untethered to any actual evidence of war crimes, let alone “genocide,” based on repetitions of the lies told by Hamas operatives and their enablers.
Even worse, this stand involved a willingness to rationalize and excuse the way the pro-Hamas movement in the United States was engaged in acts of blatant antisemitic intimidation and violence. At a time when more and more Jews felt themselves under attack, even in institutions like Columbia, where they felt most at home, some Democrats, such as Nadler and Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), claimed to be their defenders. But rather than helping to stem the tide of hate, they were still primarily focused on attacking Trump, even as he was doing more to combat antisemitism than they had ever done.
The arc of a career politician
Nadler is a classic example of a career politician. First elected to the New York State Assembly in 1976 at age 29, he spent the next decade and a half in a dogged pursuit of higher office, losing races for Manhattan Borough President and New York City Controller before finally winning a House seat in 1992. Since then, he has never faced serious opposition, though it was clear that he might be vulnerable to a younger, even more leftist primary challenger in 2026.
His story, though, is more than that of a typical political hack. His journey from being a stalwart pro-Israel liberal to his current stance, in which he cowardly follows the political fashion of the day, even if it means mimicking pro-Hamas talking points, provides insight into a similar path being pursued by many American Jews.
When being pro-Israel was seen as compatible with being a Democrat or even a natural position for someone in the party to take, there was no cost in doing so. But once the voices on the intersectional left became the loudest on that side of the aisle, politicians like Nadler began to back away from their former stances.
But the events of the last two years have also created a dilemma for American Jews. Some longtime Democrats now recognize that, as much as they have differences with Trump and most Republicans, on the one issue that is most directly connected to their safety and that of their fellow Jews here and in Israel, they are outside of their party’s new consensus.
That presents them with a difficult choice in which they must decide which is their priority: staying loyal to the Democrats and prioritizing their hatred for Trump, or holding their noses and stepping away from a party that is more and more on the side of those seeking Israel’s destruction and enabling antisemitism in the United States.