Editor’s Preface: On February 25, the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington (JCRC) issued a statement condemning the Metro DC DSA’s opposition to Zionism within its questionnaire for political candidate endorsements. On the same day, Jewish Insider published an article about the DSA questionnaire, discussing mayoral candidate Janeese Lewis George’s responses therein and other comments she has made in the past. On February 26, Washington Jewish Week published an article in which Ron Halber, CEO of JCRC, lambasted the DSA questionnaire and the organization’s opposition to Zionism.
In the article, MDC DSA responded with a statement rejecting the conflation of Zionism with Judaism and the claim that anti-Zionism is necessarily antisemitic, noting that MDC DSA has endorsed many Jewish candidates and will continue to endorse candidates of any religious affiliation who align with the organization's values. “The questionnaire does not bar Jewish candidates from endorsement, nor does it preclude affiliation with synagogues and other Jewish community institutions,” the chapter's statement added.
The following article was written prior to the events described.
Jaime Williams is a member of the Metro DC Democratic Socialists of America.
THE 2026 RACE FOR MAYOR of Washington, DC, has been blown wide open following the announcement by Mayor Muriel Bowser that she will not seek reelection. Janeese Lewis George, DC Councilmember for Ward 4 and a member of the Metro DC Democratic Socialists of America, has thrown her hat in the ring and won the backing of her home DSA chapter following a vote of the local membership. Buoyed by socialist mayoral wins in New York City and Seattle, Lewis George has a real shot at victory.
As the political Left in DC vies for power, we find ourselves confronted by thorny political questions. What kind of politics can bring together a winning coalition? What political compromises should be made, understanding that we operate within unjust and violent systems? And what are the consequences of our actions?
While the focus on affordability has provided a unifying and winning message for democratic socialists nationwide, the issue of Israel-Palestine continues to be powerfully divisive among leftists, progressives, and liberals. Tensions surrounding Israel-Palestine have already begun to surface in DC’s mayoral race. Lewis George, who is a strong supporter of the Palestinian cause, has drawn criticism for attending an event hosted by the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington (JCRC).
JCRC is a liberal Zionist organization that operates in DC, Maryland, and Virginia. It is part of a network of over 100 such community relations and public affairs councils throughout the United States. The event in question was JCRC’s annual “Lox & Legislators” breakfast, where political representatives are invited to speak to members and leaders of the organization. Some within DSA argued that, by attending JCRC’s event, Lewis George violated the chapter’s Anti-Zionist Resolution. The resolution was adopted in 2024 and prohibits members of DSA from affiliating with Zionist lobby groups or attending events sponsored by them.
JCRC’s advocacy around a slate of mainstream liberal causes has earned it a place within the DMV’s liberal and progressive coalitions. The organization advocates on behalf of LGBTQ+ rights, racial justice, criminal justice reform, immigrant rights, women’s and reproductive rights, disability rights, and gun violence prevention. It claims its mission is to “foster a society based on freedom, justice and democratic pluralism.”
However, in addition to fighting for liberal causes, JCRC is unequivocally and unwaveringly pro-Israel and has led widespread campaigns of repression and censorship throughout the DMV. It has denied clear evidence of Israeli war crimes and human rights violations, lobbied Congress to keep US weapons flowing to Israel, wielded its political influence to thwart local ceasefire resolutions, and attacked critics of the genocide and Israeli apartheid. JCRC’s social justice advocacy alongside its defense of Israel illustrates the contradiction inherent to liberal Zionism.
JCRC’s zealous defense of Israel has real ramifications for communities in the DMV. These consequences are felt primarily through the organization’s work “combating antisemitism.” JCRC conflates antisemitism with criticism of Israel, and so, instead of focusing solely on real, pernicious antisemitism, the organization works to suppress anti-Israel speech and curtail the right to protest genocide in our communities.
Since October 7, 2023, JCRC has relentlessly attacked free speech within academic institutions. For example, in April 2024, students at Jackson-Reed High School filed a lawsuit after being barred from screening a 2016 documentary critical of Israel. JCRC responded by filing an amicus brief with the court supporting the blatant act of censorship, arguing the movie was “filled with antisemitic tropes and conspiracies.” JCRC supported the investigation and suspension of four Montgomery County Public Schools teachers for sharing pro-Palestinian content on their personal social media accounts. And the organization lobbied in favor of Maryland’s Campus Act, which would have restricted student activism and freedom of speech on college campuses. The educational system has always been central to the Zionist project, which seeks to foster an affinity for Israel in the earliest and most formative years of one’s life.
JCRC has also worked to blunt any criticism of Israel among its more progressive counterparts. On November 8, 2023, JCRC issued a statement admonishing the widely respected immigrant rights organization CASA. CASA had published a post calling for a ceasefire and a “halt [to] the systematic ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people.” According to JCRC, the post contained the “untrue accusation that Israel is engaging in ethnic cleansing or suggesting that Israel should not be able to defend itself against terrorism.”
Then, on April 17, 2024, JCRC attacked the DC Abortion Fund for “antisemitic words and actions,” alleged by a former Jewish staffer at the Fund — treating the allegations as fact. In the same statement, JCRC criticized the Fund’s decision to sign a petition boycotting the concert of a known Zionist. JCRC wrote, “we will continue to insist on zero tolerance for antisemitism in progressive movements.” The organization demands that others conform to its views on Israel. Its brand of politics erodes solidarity within progressive movements — forcing progressives to choose between their moral values and the desire to not anger a powerful ally.
Finally, JCRC advocates for increased government surveillance and policing in response to antisemitism. In June 2025, the organization lobbied Congress to increase the Nonprofit Security Grant Program to $1 billion. This program provides grants to “nonprofit organizations that are at high risk of terrorist attack” so they can “harden” their security infrastructure. JCRC also requested expanded FBI resources to fight the “domestic and global war on terror,” greater funding for local law enforcement to guard Jewish institutions, and more regulations for whatever it deems to be hate speech on social media.
While concerns about antisemitism are justified, JCRC's actions need to be examined in the context of its overly broad definition of antisemitism and the way that the security and surveillance state has been misused to silence critics of Israel. Additionally, we’re now seeing how the Trump administration is utilizing these tools of repression to enact its larger and more expansive authoritarian agenda.
Given the corrosive effects of liberal Zionism on our politics, it makes sense that Metro DC DSA would introduce and pass an Anti-Zionist Resolution, as it did in 2024. Such a resolution seeks to unequivocally stake out the organization’s position on Palestinian liberation and commit to politically marginalizing groups like JCRC. That said, the attempt to sanction individuals who engage with liberal Zionist organizations raises important strategic questions for the Left, especially as it strives to assemble winning coalitions and build political power.
There are conceivable political benefits to engaging with JCRC. JCRC might help a progressive ally pass key legislation. It may help Lewis George on her way to winning the mayoral election — bringing a democratic socialist to power in DC. These are not trivial considerations. The Left needs a larger platform to share its progressive agenda, shift public perception of democratic socialism, and deliver material results for the working class. To paraphrase New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, what the political and economic elites fear most is the power of a good example.
On the other hand, it can be politically strategic to demand ideological consistency on the moral issues of our time. Many are drawn to the Left because of its adherence to a strong set of moral and ethical principles, and are increasingly repelled by the Democratic Party, which appears to lack any such principles. There is a growing argument for being unapologetic and bold in one’s politics. It energizes the base. Look no further than the New York City mayoral race, where Mamdani, who had a clear progressive message, trounced former Governor Andrew Cuomo, who chased voter sentiment and, consequently, ended up standing for nothing.
There is no single, correct answer to any of this: standing on principle has its value, as does strategic compromise. What’s important is that leftists accurately assess their own relative power and understand what it takes to grow a movement. We should be careful to not overestimate our influence, demand things of our elected officials we cannot have or that they’re unwilling to give, and then pull away when disappointment strikes. This will only diminish DSA’s power and influence.
At the same time, we must not limit ourselves to short-term electoral calculus. JCRC and liberal Zionism do real harm to communities in the DMV and progressive movements more broadly. Therefore, it’s prudent to articulate these harms and ask: what role do progressive organizations and political candidates play in normalizing JCRC? Advocating alongside JCRC or attending one of their events lends legitimacy to the organization. It makes no difference if the focus is on topics separate and apart from Israel-Palestine. Arguably, it actually serves JCRC when hot-button issues are not raised in conversation, because this allows them to skirt controversy. JCRC is able to accumulate political capital through its work on progressive issues, and then use its reputation to launder Zionist ideas in progressive circles and inflict harm on our communities.
The Left has the difficult task of navigating the gap between the world as it should be and the world as it is. Organizations like DSA will be judged by whether or not they’re able to push their progressive vision into the mainstream of public consciousness. Elections are a powerful way of doing that: people pay attention to elections, and a campaign can introduce and promote new political ideas. But winning elections requires a delicate balance of standing on strong principles and coalition-building with those with whom one disagrees.
The correct balance cannot be struck without a proper accounting of the pros and cons of engaging with certain actors. We must discuss the significance of winning major political races in terms of advancing democratic socialism. We must also discuss openly and honestly how liberal Zionism operates within progressive coalitions, how organizations like JCRC inflict harm at every level of our society, and how we legitimize these organizations if we engage with them and paper over political disagreements.
As we ask these questions, we must remember that the political landscape is always in flux. Nothing is a given. Our work as leftists should be to continually shape and reshape the political calculus of our would-be leaders by changing the facts on the ground. For if we fail to build a new winning coalition, one that defends Palestinian liberation and is truly anti-Zionist, then we risk simply recreating the world as it is.
