For center-left Democrats in New York who back Israel, the narrative following Tuesday’s House primary elections has become a political nightmare. All three candidates endorsed by state Assemblymember Zohran Mamdani—two of whom were openly critical of Israel—won their races, sparking headlines from outlets like the New York Times and Politico that frame this as the rise of the anti-Israel left. Moderate Democrats are now asking, as one anonymous strategist put it, “Where do we go now?”
The answer requires a clear-eyed look at the landscape. Denying the electoral threat to the bipartisan consensus on Israel—from both the far left and the far right—is not a viable strategy. Instead, a dispassionate analysis shows that while the terrain is growing more challenging, it is not yet forbidding for pro-Israel moderates.
First, the Democratic Socialists of America are having a moment. Their victories in three bright blue New York City districts underscore their organizational muscle and ability to rally voters around a sharply critical stance on Israel. However, the vast majority of House and Senate Democrats—and their voters—remain closer to the center on Israel and most other issues. This means that mobilizing in support of moderate, pro-Israel Democratic candidates across the country is more vital than ever.
The progressive primary sweep in New York has deepened the Democratic rift over strategy, with the DSA’s wins intensifying internal debates about the party’s direction. The New York primary upsets have upended the picks of House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, as left-wing candidates ousted incumbents and sent shockwaves through the establishment.
Second, the DSA’s success is partly fueled by a broader shift in public opinion. A record share of US voters now say Washington overdoes support for Israel, a trend that the DSA has leveraged effectively. Yet, among Democratic primary voters, the anti-Israel wing remains a minority. The key is that the DSA has mastered turnout in low-turnout primaries, while moderate voters often stay home.
Third, the DSA’s victories are a warning, not a rout. The party’s center-left majority can still prevail if it organizes with the same intensity. As one pro-Israel strategist noted, “We need to treat every primary like a general election.” That means early endorsements, robust fundraising, and grassroots mobilization to counter the DSA’s ground game.
Fourth, the implications extend beyond New York. The Democratic establishment is collapsing, as Van Jones put it, after these upsets. But that collapse is not inevitable. Moderates must learn from the DSA’s playbook: build local networks, use social media to counter narratives, and frame Israel as a bipartisan issue that transcends the party’s internal divisions.
The path forward for pro-Israel Democrats is clear: acknowledge the threat, mobilize the center, and refuse to cede ground to the far left. The DSA’s moment is real, but it is not yet a movement. The question is whether moderates will rise to meet it.
