My specific concerns was that Mr. Lander appeared to hold such beliefs with such vehemence that he would use a position in elected office and the credibility that such position bestowed upon him to further his anti-Israel politics.

I am pleased to report that I no longer have that concern. I can say with some confidence that the chances of Mr. Lander ever using a seat on the City Council to advance an anti-Israel agenda now appear to be slim to non-existent. Clearly, my prior posts concerning Mr. Lander had him all wrong and I apologize profusely.

Rather, the response by Mr. Lander and his campaign to these pieces raises an entirely different and unexpected set of concerns which may also be quite relevant in evaluating Mr. Landers fitness for office--perhaps even more relevant than my concerns about his prior anti-Israel screed.

To refresh everyone’s recollection, Mr. Lander had chosen to publish in an overwhelmingly anti-Israel anthology, edited by the anti-Israel playwright Tony Kushner, an article entitled “To Our Son, Marek Alexander Barnette, on the Occasion of His Naming,” which recounted the words he spoke at his son’s ritual circumcision. The relevant passages of this article said as follows:

“Marek, we inscribe you today into the Jewish covenant. We are imposing upon you a set of overlapping identities, inscribing you with a name of our choosing and with the ritual violence of circumcision

…We hope that you will learn to embrace this gift without thinking that you are better than others, or that your identity ought to endow you with special privileges. In particular, we are thrilled to pronounce you a Jew without the Right of Return. Your name contains our deep hope that you will explore and celebrate your Jewish identity without confusing it with nationalism.

Your last name is your mother’s -- a non-Jewish one -- by the fact of which you are ineligible for the nationalist privilege of automatic Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return. We believe that law confuses the wonderful and painful inheritance of identity with unearned advantages -- legal, political, and financial -- granted by a militarized state over other people, including so many it oppresses daily….

…We pray fervently that by the time you read this, the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, the settlements, the house demolitions, the violence will be history. But even then, we hope you will appreciate this absence of nationalist privilege in your inscribed identity. We hope you will work for a world where identity is explored, nurtured, critiqued, celebrated, and protected -- but not the basis for privilege, for discrimination, for money, for power.”

The article is nothing less than an assertions that, despite the fact that the Jewish people have wandered stateless through most of recorded history and paid the price for, mostly in blood, time and again, the concept of them actually having, like most other peoples, their own nation-state, is somehow racist, chauvanistic, exclusionary and theocratic in a manner that renders it worthy of condemnation never bestowed upon any other nation-state.

Although there are some critics of Israel who apparently believe that Israel should never fight back when attacked, they are at least upset with Israel because of what it does. While not all such criticisms are valid, it certainly is not fair to brand all who criticize Israeli actions as anti-Israel. By contrast, those who reject the right of Jews to have a Jewish State, the same way the French have a French state, are doing something quite different. They oppose not Israeli actions, but Israeli existence. Given the harshness of Lander's published words about Jewish nationalism, the only logical conclusion from reading Lander’s article is that Lander is an anti-Israel extremist.

These days, it is rare that an article on Room 8 attracts any or many comments, unless it attacks a particular candidate for local office, in which case that candidate’s supporters tend to adopt new monickers and rally to his defense, often purveying information which could only have come from the candidate himself. Such appears to be the case in this instance, as Mr. Lander‘s followers rallied to his side with a self contradictory bunch of alternative defenses.

Behold:

1) Brad is not anti-Israel

2) if Brad is he is anti-Israel, then he's right and deserves your vote [“what this demonstrates to me is that Lander highly values human rights”]; and

3) if you don't like either of these answers, don't worry, it's not an issue anyway. In fact it is wrong even to talk about it.

Argument number two is a matter of taste; I disagree, but surely there are a lot of people in Park Slope who embrace this view, and they are as entitled to factor it into their vote as I am into mine. And, up until recently, I would have had to concede that Mr. Lander is the candidate who is entitled to their votes. More on that later.

Argument number one is bolstered by facts which, if true, could only have come from Mr. Lander. For instance, we are told that Mr. Lander is a member of the pro-Israel lobby, AIPAC, which given that, in the essay, Mr. Landers called Israel “"a militarized state over other people, including so many it oppresses daily," I tend to regard as AIPAC of lies. However, there is recent evidence, which I will discuss later, that Mr. Lander’s position has evolved since he’s written the essay. Note I say his position, rather than his views, but this is important, as, if he keeps his views to himself, it is hardly my concern.

I find argument three the most interesting. Mr. Lander’s supporters argue that Israel is simply not an issue, and that criticism of their candidate on this score is therefore illegitimate.

This argument usually begins with the accusation that Mr. Lander is being attacked on the basis of his religious views, and therefore the matter is off-limits.

To make this argument puts Mr. Lander into the same corner as one of his opponents, John Heyer, who used the same arguments when he was attacked for his opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage. But while people’s position on the right of Jews to have a nation-state of their own may, like abortion be informed by their religious views, this fact does not render discussions of such topics off-limits, no matter what Mr. Heyer, Mr. Lander or Mr. Giuliani may argue to the contrary.

But should Israel be an issue at all in a City Council race? After all, as Mr. Lander’s supporters have reminded us, the City Council has no jurisdiction over matters of foreign policy.

Well, as the City of New Paltz learned, municipalities in New York also have no jurisdiction over who is allowed to get married and who is not. So, why then, asks Mr. Heyer, should same sex marriage be an issue in this race?

Yet, has anyone yet seen Mr. Lander rallying to Mr. Heyer’s defense instead of joining the pack in piling on.

And why not? Are not Mr. Heyer’s views on same sex marriage and abortion a perfectly legitimate way for voters to discern his values on issues which may emerge during his council term? OF COURSE THEY ARE, and probably a very good one. Similarly, Mr. Lander’s views on Israel probably speak volumes about his worldview as well.

Moreover, the City Council passes resolutions on war, and foreign policy, and people like Mr. Lander, some of his opponents, and their supporters issue fatwas against those who vote against their positions on these resolutions. The City uses its pension fund investments as political weapons all the time. There are trade missions and there are sister-cities. Mr. Lander and one of his opponents, Josh Skaller, spend half their time talking about their antiwar activities. In fact, Mr. Lander's backers include a political party which asked people to cast their vote for Governor in order to send a message about the Iraq war.

Can anyone believe that Mr. Lander’s supporters would support for state or local office a candidate who wrote an article in support of the war in Iraq?

And you know something? In the end, they are not so wrong. Isn't it really mostly about electing people who share your values?

But since publication of my articles, Mr. Lander’s position has moved into a whole different plane.

Interviewed about his article by Jewish Week, Lander now says he “regrets the language.”

Moreover, Lander explained that he supports the right of return, and his article stemmed from a mistaken impression that his child’s mixed parentage rendered him ineligible to be an Israeli. “I want my son to be part of the Jewish community, but it was a mistake to allow my feelings to go public like that.”

This is purely and simply a baldfaced opportunistic lie.

Re-read Mr. Lander’s words above. He practically jumps for joy at the thought that his son is ineligible to be a return Jew. His use of terms like “militaristic” and “oppressive” indicates that he takes an extreme view of the Israeli enterprise, and his disdain for the “special privilege” afforded to Jews is clear.

Is he now saying he approves of that “special privilege,“ but only if his family is included in it?

Mr. Lander is in public denial that he ever was anti-Israel, a nation which he previously called “militaristic” and “oppressive.” Mr. Lander actually expects us to believe that he used such hateful words because of questions regarding his child’s status as a Jew.

Mr. Lander is no idiot. He’s an academic. His words had nothing to do with quibble over which Jews were included in the Law of Return. They had to do with that Law’s existence at all, and more importantly, with the existence of Israel. If Mr. Lander were at all sincere in his “regret,” he would explicitly repudiate not only his choice of words, but also his former position, which he refuses to acknowledge at all.

Instead, in an effort to deny the explicit and indisputable meaning of his own words, Mr. Lander has chosen to prostitutes his own child in service to his political career.

This is shameful.

Nonetheless, it makes crystal clear that I no longer have any right to worry about whether Mr. Lander will ever lend his name and elected position to the anti-Israel cause. Mr. Lander has proven there is virtually no expedient he will not resort to in service to his political ambitions. We need never worry, ever again, whether Mr. Lander will ever make an anti-Israel statement, no matter what he really thinks.

That’s good enough for me. At least on that issue.

Nonetheless, what all this says about his Mr. Lander’s trustworthiness, or his willingness to stand upon a matter of principle, is quite a different matter. Those voters who previously concluded that Mr. Lander’s prior position proved he “highly values human rights” are on notice--Mr. Lander highly values nothing but his own election.