In the summer of 1942, facing an existential threat from Nazi Germany’s nuclear program, the United States launched the most ambitious scientific undertaking in human history. The Manhattan Project marshaled unprecedented resources—$2 billion (more than $40 billion in today’s dollars), 130,000 workers and the nation’s brightest minds—against a determined enemy and an unforgiving clock. Three years later, American scientists had not only matched but surpassed their adversaries, fundamentally altering the trajectory of World War II and the balance of global power.

Today, American pro-Israel advocacy faces its own inflection point. As chief policy officer of the Israeli-American Civic Action Network (ICAN) and vice mayor of Beverly Hills, Calif., I witness this challenge from two vantage points: as a policy professional working to build pro-Israel networks and as an elected official experiencing firsthand how anti-Israel activism has systematically invaded state and local government.

The reports coming out of New York—where state assemblyman Zohran Mamdani, a Democratic Socialist and BDS supporter, is leading the mayoral race—and Minneapolis—where anti-Israel activists have captured significant local political infrastructure—are alarming. But they’re not isolated incidents. Here in California, I’ve watched several cities pass one-sided, Hamas-inspired ceasefire resolutions while pro-Israel voices remain systematically absent from local political and electoral processes.

The time has come for our own Manhattan Project: a national, coordinated mobilization to build professional pro-Israel infrastructure at the state and local levels before anti-Israel activists complete their institutional capture of American politics.

The old paradigm: Federal focus and local avoidance

Until recently, the division of labor in pro-Israel advocacy seemed fairly clear, although misguided. Historically, AIPAC has handled matters related to Israel almost exclusively at the federal level. At the same time, Jewish federations and Jewish Community Relations Councils have managed state and local Jewish community relations, while usually keeping Israel off their agendas for what they have felt have been sound strategic reasons. That perception was itself a mistake as Israel’s welfare has always been and remains critical for the safety, well-being and future of Jews around the world.

In many cases, the issue of Israel has been guided by a philosophical argument about jurisdictional appropriateness. State and local affairs traditionally focused on schools, infrastructure and community services, not international relations. With this in mind, Israel seemed rightly relegated to Washington, D.C., not city halls or state capitals.

There has also been a practical question about expertise and inclination. Jewish communal professionals working in state and local affairs are generally not so well-versed in Middle East policy or Israel advocacy nuance, though they should be since anti-Israel rhetoric is often used as a thinly veiled cover for anti-Jewish behavior. And so, it is somewhat alarming that some Jewish community professionals—reflecting broader trends in certain progressive Jewish spaces, fueled by moral narcissism and acceptance of an oversimplified “oppressor/oppressed” framework in which Jews are misclassified as “white” and perforce as “oppressors”—may even hold anti-Zionist views themselves.

The non-holistic approach within Jewish organizations to Israel created what for many seemed like a reasonable division of labor: AIPAC’s federal expertise secured support for Israel at the federal level, while state and local Jewish organizations focused on their core competencies around building community without venturing into what they felt might be potentially damaging political territory, often being prepared to jettison Israel for a “seat at the table,” in many cases with people and groups one would never want to sit at a table with in the first place. In short, this arrangement has been both divisive and dangerous, and it is fundamentally wrong. When local Jewish groups aren’t willing to defend Israel from false narratives, propaganda and blood libels, whether or not framed within a “woke” ideology, it endangers Jews.

Jewish safety and security must never again depend upon the kindness of strangers, and Israel must be a red line for all groups concerned with the welfare of Jewish communities in America and around the world. No, this doesn’t mean a defense of every Israeli government or of all Israeli policies. But it does mean support for the very existence of a Jewish state in the ancestral homeland of the Jews, where we are indigenous. It means a recognition that a demonization of Israel, coupled with the Münchhausen-style false narratives and mutating blood libels that regularly flood legacy media and social media, are making Jews around the world less safe, as evidenced by the beating murder of Paul Kessler, 69, in Thousand Oaks, Calif.; the firebombing murder of 82-year-old Karen Diamond in Boulder, Colo.; and shooting deaths in Washington, D.C., of Israeli embassy staffers Yaron Lischinsky, 30, and Sarah Milgrim, 26, who were on their way to being engaged.

The power gap: What I see from City Hall

From my perspective, this conventional wisdom was a grave mistake from the very beginning, and the inaction it has caused at the local level has had negative consequences for the Jewish community. Anti-Israel activists have unilaterally expanded the battlefield to state and local levels, creating a massive advocacy vacuum that they are systematically filling with professional political infrastructure.

As an elected official, the scope of this infiltration is staggering. The Democratic Socialists of America have elected 200-plus officials to state and local offices since 2017, each vetted in candidate questionnaires for anti-Israel positions regardless of whether their role involves foreign policy. Organizations like CAIR, Jewish Voice for Peace and Students for Justice in Palestine have targeted school districts, city councils and state legislatures with coordinated, sophisticated lobbying campaigns.

Their attacks on Israel don’t only serve to demonize and delegitimize Israel while employing double standards; they also deflect from and trivialize the dangers of the jihadi ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamofascist groups in this country and abroad.

I’ve witnessed this firsthand in California, where several cities have passed one-sided ceasefire resolutions, divestment proposals and made statements that echo Hamas talking points while ignoring Israeli security concerns, hostage releases or the context of terrorist attacks in southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.

These resolutions don’t emerge organically; they are the result of coordinated pressure campaigns by anti-Israel activist groups who understand that local government shapes public opinion and provides a stepping stone to higher office.

Meanwhile, 7,383 state legislators nationwide hear almost exclusively from voices unreasonably critical or under-informed about Israel on issues ranging from ethnic-studies curricula to Jewish student safety and inclusion. As someone who works in local government and pro-Israel advocacy, this vacuum is professionally stunning and strategically dangerous.

The rise of politicians like Mamdani illustrates the consequences. He built his anti-Israel credentials over the years: co-founding Students for Justice in Palestine at Bowdoin College, leading BDS chants at rallies, introducing legislation targeting pro-Israel nonprofits, and, if elected mayor of the largest city in the United States, pledging to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Each step occurred without organized pro-Israel opposition because our infrastructure simply doesn’t exist at these levels.

Breaking through: The Beverly Hills model

In January of 2020, as mayor, I had the opportunity to make Beverly Hills the first city in the United States to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism. This wasn’t just symbolic; it provided a concrete tool for identifying and countering antisemitic content, including anti-Israel materials that meet the IHRA definition.

The IHRA is particularly important to combat the latent advantages shamelessly activated by the anti-Israel actors. As Irish politician and writer Conor Cruise O’Brien once noted: “There are those in whom antisemitism is a light sleeper.” As my grandfather, Bill Goldberg, often said: “Jew-hatred is never far beneath the surface.” The public relations and legislative advances made by CAIR and other hate groups—many fueled by Qatari cash—are directly built upon the world’s oldest extant form of racism.

By falsely claiming that the IHRA working definition does not permit criticism of Israeli policies or the Israeli government, anti-Israel actors continually attempt to discredit the definition to shield themselves from accusations of anti-Jewish racism. Ultimately, however, this knee-jerk rejection of the IHRA working definition itself is a revealing form of racism denialism.

The Beverly Hills adoption and implementation of the IHRA definition, along with other successes, reveal both the potential and the challenges of local pro-Israel advocacy. On one hand, the city demonstrates that local officials can and will support strong pro-Israel positions when presented with professional advocacy and clear policy frameworks. On the other hand, Beverly Hills highlights how isolated such efforts remain without a systematic infrastructure to replicate and scale them.

Working with ICAN, I learned how to build sustainable local networks rather than relying on one-off victories. ICAN’s approach, starting with K-12 parent engagement and scaling to broader policy advocacy, creates the ongoing political relationships necessary for sustained influence. The same parent networks concerned about their children’s education become sophisticated advocates for Israel’s security needs, foreign-policy positions and legislative priorities.

This dual-use capability proved invaluable during Israel’s recent operations against Iran. Our networks built around education issues mobilized within 24 hours to support Israel’s defensive actions, demonstrating how local infrastructure converts instantly to national security advocacy when needed.

The ICAN innovation: Making Israel locally relevant

Through my work as ICAN’s chief policy officer, I have seen how we’ve solved the fundamental challenge that prevented earlier state and local pro-Israel organizing: how to build infrastructure without diluting AIPAC’s federal power. The last thing any pro-Israel advocate wants is to undermine the most effective pro-Israel entity in American history.

In support of some of the nation’s pro-Israel think tanks, ICAN aims to be an “action tank.” Its breakthrough came from recognizing that K-12 education provides a natural entry point for state and local Israel advocacy. When anti-Israel activists push BDS content into ethnic studies curricula, they make Israel a local issue by forcing local responses. Rather than avoiding this battlefield, ICAN engages it systematically, building political networks on the backbone of parental concern for their children’s education.

This approach offers unique advantages not available at the federal level. Jewish mothers, Israeli-American parents and non-Jewish allies unite around their children’s education to create authentic grassroots networks that scale to broader policy engagement. Unlike traditional advocacy approaches that feel imposed from outside, parent-based organizing emerges from immediate community concerns.

Central to this model is mobilizing the Israeli-American community specifically. Israeli-Americans possess advantages that traditional pro-Israel advocacy cannot replicate: an authentic connection to Israel that cannot be dismissed as mere lobbying; civil-rights protections against national origin discrimination that provide legal standing against BDS campaigns; and immigrant community dynamics that resonate across diverse political constituencies.

Through joint Israeli-American leadership structures, ICAN combines Israeli expertise with American civic knowledge, creating voices that speak to local concerns while maintaining credible Israel advocacy. This isn’t theoretical. I’ve watched it work across California as we’ve defeated statewide anti-Israel legislation, supported Jewish safety in local school districts and built electoral accountability for pro-Israel positions.

Tracking the pipeline: The ‘Mamdani Index’

As part of ICAN’s advocacy intelligence capabilities, we’ve begun developing what we call the “Mamdani Index”—systematic tracking of anti-Israel politicians advancing through local and state governments nationwide. So far, we have identified about 30 officials across five states who follow similar trajectories: campus anti-Israel activism; DSA or similar organizational affiliation; advancement through local offices while building anti-Israel credentials; and preparation for higher office.

This early-warning system reveals the scope of the challenge and the urgency of response. Each of these 30 officials represents not just current anti-Israel votes, but potential future federal leaders shaped by years of unopposed political advancement.

The Index also demonstrates why conventional approaches fail at the state and local levels. Traditional Jewish organizations lack the political focus and systematic approach necessary for this type of monitoring. They also often lack the political will. Federal-focused organizations lack the state and local connections required for comprehensive tracking. ICAN’s model generates both the relationships and analytical framework necessary to identify threats before they become crises.

The Manhattan Project imperative

Like the original Manhattan Project, building comprehensive state and local pro-Israel infrastructure requires recognizing the scale of the challenge and responding with commensurate resources and urgency. The 2026 state elections will seat the political leaders who shape America’s relationship with Israel for the next decade. Without immediate, systematic intervention, the pipeline that produced Mamdani will produce dozens more like him.

I can attest that ICAN’s model works. We have defeated AB 1468 (statewide anti-Israel ethnic-studies expansion); secured Los Angeles Unified School District and United Teachers Los Angeles condemnation of BDS; won IHRA antisemitism definition adoption in Beverly Hills, West Hollywood and Los Angeles; and contributed to defeating anti-Israel LAUSD candidate Khalid Al Alim in 2024. Each victory built additional political capital and expanded network capabilities.

But success in one state isn’t sufficient when anti-Israel activists operate nationally. And continued success in California itself is no longer a given when considerable fiscal resources are poured into demonizing Israel by Qatar, its Al Jazeera propaganda network and other malign actors. What’s needed is the same recognition that drove the original Manhattan Project: Some threats demand mobilization of resources at a scale that matches the challenge’s scope and urgency.

The conventional wisdom that separated federal pro-Israel advocacy from local Jewish organization activities may have made sense to some in a different political environment. That conventional wisdom was wrong in the past, but today, it is downright dangerous: Ignoring Israel at the local levels creates vulnerabilities that anti-Israel activists exploit. ICAN’s working as an action tank has proven that professional state and local infrastructure can fill this gap without undermining federal efforts by strengthening pro-Israel political culture from the ground up.

I can say with near certainty that incremental responses are inadequate. Anti-Israel activists understand that they are building the foundation for long-term political power. The pro-Israel community’s response must be equally systematic, professional and committed to victory.

The infrastructure to ensure our voice is heard in the 2026 elections must be built now. The choice is whether the pro-Israel community will meet this moment with the seriousness it demands or continue with approaches that have proven insufficient to the challenges we face. The time for conventional wisdom has passed. The Manhattan Project for pro-Israel advocacy at the state and local levels must begin without delay. If not, we must accept that the next generation of American leaders will be shaped by voices that seek Israel’s destruction rather than its security, which will endanger the Jewish community in America as well as Jewish communities around the world.

The post A Manhattan Project for pro-Israel advocacy at the state and local level appeared first on JNS.org.