Former New York City Comptroller Brad Lander, who won the Democratic primary in New York’s 10th Congressional District with the support of Mayor Zohran Mamdani, says Israel had a right to respond to the October 7 massacre. But when asked what Israel should actually have done, he offered no realistic strategy for defeating Hamas, freeing the hostages, or preventing another attack.

Brad Lander, the former New York City comptroller, has won the Democratic primary in New York’s 10th Congressional District.

His victory represents another major success for the progressive and democratic-socialist political movement associated with New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, who supported Lander during the primary campaign.

Lander is formally running as a Democratic Party candidate. However, his political support comes from the same progressive camp that has increasingly turned hostility toward Israel into a defining part of its political identity.

That makes Lander’s position on Israel especially important.

During a CNN interview, Lander was asked a simple and direct question:

If Israel went too far after October 7, what exactly should Israel have done instead?

The question concerned the worst mass killing of Jews since the Holocaust.

On October 7, 2023, Hamas-led terrorists crossed into Israel and attacked homes, kibbutzim, roads, military positions, and the Nova music festival.

They murdered Israeli civilians and soldiers. They killed children, elderly people, foreign workers, and visitors from numerous countries. They kidnapped men, women, children, and senior citizens and dragged them into Gaza.

Some of the attackers recorded their own crimes using cellphones and body cameras. Videos and images were circulated by the perpetrators themselves and through Hamas-linked channels.

The victims included Jews, Muslims, Christians, Bedouins, foreign nationals, peace activists, and people who had spent years supporting coexistence and assistance for Palestinians.

This was not an abstract disagreement over borders or policy. It was an armed invasion accompanied by mass murder, hostage-taking, torture, abuse, and documented acts of sexual violence.

Lander Called October 7 “Genocidal Terrorism”

Lander did acknowledge the nature of the attack.

During the interview, he said:

“I think Hamas committed an act of genocidal terrorism on October 7th, and there had to be a response.”

That statement matters.

But Lander then argued that Israel’s first priority should have been securing the hostages’ release through a political agreement. He also said Hamas militants responsible for the October 7 attack should have been held accountable.

The problem is that he did not explain how any of that could have been accomplished without military force.

Who was supposed to enter Hamas-controlled territory and arrest the terrorists?

Who was supposed to dismantle Hamas command centers, weapons depots, rocket launchers, tunnels, and communications networks?

How could Israel free hostages when Hamas was using those hostages as political and military leverage?

And what would prevent another October 7 attack if Hamas remained armed, organized, and in control of Gaza?

Lander condemned the attack, but he did not provide a practical method for defeating the organization that carried it out.

The Question Lander Did Not Answer

CNN’s interviewer repeatedly pressed the central issue.

Israel had been attacked. Civilians had been massacred. Hostages had been taken into Gaza.

What should Israel have done?

Lander’s answer focused largely on Palestinian casualties and destruction in Gaza. He accused Israel of going too far and argued that war crimes by one side do not justify war crimes by another.

That principle is correct: all parties to a conflict are bound by the laws of war.

But it does not answer the operational question.

A government has a basic obligation to defend its citizens, rescue hostages, destroy the military infrastructure used to attack them, and prevent another invasion.

Lander did not explain how Israel could have fulfilled that obligation while leaving Hamas’s military and political structure intact.

October 7 Crimes Were Documented Beyond Israeli Government Sources

The crimes committed during the October 7 attack have not been documented only by the Israeli government.

A United Nations Commission of Inquiry found that Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups committed killings, hostage-taking, mistreatment, and other serious violations of international humanitarian law.

United Nations investigators also found reasonable grounds to believe that rape and gang rape occurred during the attack.

The office of the UN Special Representative on Sexual Violence in Conflict reported clear and convincing information that some hostages were subjected to sexual violence, sexualized torture, and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment while in captivity.

The attack was also recorded extensively by surveillance cameras, victims’ phones, emergency personnel, journalists, and the attackers themselves.

The perpetrators did not merely deny the crimes afterward. In many cases, they filmed and distributed evidence of their own actions.

The Victims Were Not Only Jewish

The October 7 attack is often described primarily as an attack against Israeli Jews, and antisemitic ideology clearly played a central role.

But the terrorists did not limit their violence to Jews.

Among the victims were Arab Israelis, Bedouins, Muslims, Christians, Thai and Nepalese agricultural workers, foreign students, tourists, and citizens of multiple countries.

Muslim Bedouins were murdered and kidnapped. Arab emergency workers and police officers were killed while trying to protect civilians. Foreign workers were attacked simply because they happened to be in Israel.

The massacre demonstrated that Hamas’s violence was directed not only against a particular Israeli government but against the civilian society of Israel itself.

Hamas Operates From Civilian Areas

The suffering of Palestinian civilians in Gaza is real and tragic.

Israel, like every military power, is required to follow international humanitarian law, distinguish between civilian and military targets, and take precautions to reduce civilian harm.

But the legal and moral responsibility of Hamas cannot be erased.

Hamas has operated within densely populated civilian areas and has used an extensive underground tunnel network beneath urban neighborhoods. Its fighters, weapons, command facilities, and military infrastructure have been embedded inside civilian environments.

That does not remove Israel’s legal obligations.

But it does make military operations extraordinarily difficult and places Palestinian civilians at greater risk.

A serious discussion must therefore address both sides of the equation: Israel’s obligation to minimize civilian casualties and Hamas’s responsibility for launching attacks and conducting military operations from civilian areas.

Lander focused heavily on the first issue while offering no credible plan for solving the second.

The Democratic-Socialist Movement’s Position on Israel

Lander ran in the Democratic Party primary, not as the candidate of a separate “Mamdani party” or DSA ballot line.

Nevertheless, his political victory came with support from Mayor Mamdani and from New York’s broader progressive movement.

That movement includes Democratic Socialists of America, which has adopted an openly anti-Zionist position.

DSA’s own official statements have supported a “free Palestine from the river to the sea” and a single “democratic secular state” throughout the territory currently comprising Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza.

Supporters describe this as a program of equal political rights.

Critics argue that it would eliminate Israel as the national homeland of the Jewish people and replace it with a different political entity in which Jews could become a vulnerable minority.

That distinction matters.

Opposing a particular Israeli government is not the same as opposing Israel’s existence.

Criticizing Israeli military decisions is not the same as denying the Jewish people a right to national self-determination.

But portions of the democratic-socialist movement have increasingly crossed that line by rejecting Zionism itself and supporting political demands that would end Israel’s existence as a Jewish state.

Lander Says He Supports a Jewish Israel — but Distances Himself From Zionism

During the CNN interview, Lander was also asked why he no longer calls himself a Zionist.

He responded that he believes in the vision of a Jewish and democratic Israel, but does not want to be associated with Israeli politicians such as Bezalel Smotrich or Itamar Ben-Gvir.

That position is more nuanced than simply opposing Israel’s existence.

It would therefore be inaccurate to claim that Lander personally called for Israel’s destruction.

However, his effort to distance himself from Zionism reflects a broader political environment in which the very idea of Jewish national self-determination is increasingly treated as illegitimate.

For many Jewish New Yorkers, that is not an abstract linguistic debate.

Zionism, at its most basic level, is the belief that the Jewish people have a right to national self-determination in their historic homeland.

One may oppose Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli settlements, particular military operations, or specific government policies and still recognize that right.

The growing tendency to use “Zionist” as an insult raises a serious question: why is the national self-determination of Jews treated differently from the national aspirations of other peoples?

Trump’s Position: Israel Has a Right to Defend Itself

President Donald Trump has taken a far more direct position.

Trump has repeatedly supported Israel’s right to defend itself, demanded the release of the hostages, and called for the defeat of Hamas.

His administration has emphasized that peace cannot be achieved while an armed terrorist organization continues to control Gaza, hold hostages, and threaten new attacks against Israel.

The central principle of Trump’s position is straightforward:

Israel cannot be expected to accept permanent vulnerability in exchange for temporary diplomatic promises.

A ceasefire that leaves Hamas armed, organized, and capable of repeating October 7 would not create peace. It would merely postpone the next war.

Negotiations may be necessary to secure the release of hostages and reduce civilian suffering. But negotiations alone cannot guarantee security if the terrorist infrastructure remains intact.

Criticism of Israel Is Legitimate — Erasing the Cause of the War Is Not

Israel’s government can and should be criticized.

Military decisions can be questioned. Civilian casualties must be investigated. Humanitarian assistance must be delivered. Long-term political solutions must be debated.

But an honest discussion must begin with the event that caused the war.

The war did not begin with an Israeli attack on Gaza.

It began on the morning of October 7, when armed terrorists crossed the border, murdered people in their homes, attacked a music festival, kidnapped civilians, and carried hostages into Gaza.

Lander calls the attack “genocidal terrorism.”

Yet when asked what Israel should have done in response, he offered negotiations, hostage recovery, and accountability for individual militants without explaining how any of those goals could be achieved against an armed organization controlling Gaza.

Questions New York Voters Deserve to Have Answered

Brad Lander is no longer simply a former city official commenting on foreign policy.

After winning the Democratic primary, the former New York City comptroller is on a path toward representing New York in Congress.

Voters therefore deserve specific answers.

Does Lander believe Israel had the right to destroy Hamas’s military capabilities after October 7?

How should Israel have freed the hostages if Hamas refused to release them?

Who was supposed to arrest Hamas militants inside territory controlled by Hamas?

What should Israel have done about the tunnel network, rocket launchers, weapons depots, and command structure?

And what would have prevented another massacre if Hamas remained in power?

Saying Israel “had to respond” is not enough.

A candidate for Congress should be able to explain how an American ally was supposed to protect its people after a mass terrorist attack.

So far, Lander’s position amounts to this:

Israel had a right to respond — but not in the way it responded.

What he has not explained is what realistic alternative he would have accepted.