Zohran Mamdani, a New York City mayoral candidate, speaks on Primary Day at a campaign news conference at Astoria Park in Queens, New York, United States, on June 24, 2025. Photo: Kyle Mazza vis Reuters Connect.

In September 1882, a coalition of political parties gathered in Dresden, Germany, for the Congress for the Safeguarding of Non-Jewish Interests. It marked a turning point in the convergence of traditional anti-Jewish sentiment with the emerging ideology of antisemitism.

Traditionally, anti-Jewishness was merely an attitude or prejudice. But antisemitism emerged as a political platform, arguing that Jews had undue influence following their European emancipation. Before long, figures in the antisemitic movement made their case explicit: “Antisemit [sic] means an opponent of the Jews.”

This historical convergence proves the fallacy of today’s “antisemitism is not anti-Zionism” assertion. Debates surrounding the terminology are immaterial; the repercussions of anti-Israel and anti-Jewish sentiment have already been witnessed in Boulder, Colorado, and Washington, D.C.

In Washington, D.C., two Israeli embassy staffers were murdered by an Islamist-inspired socialist radical. This wasn’t an isolated incident of extremism — it marked the end of a pipeline of hate that has normalized calls for the destruction of Israel and targeting Jews as a collective.

Under Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser’s leadership, the Nation’s capital has become a testing ground for what Democratic Socialist mayoral candidate Zoharn Mamdani advocates for in New York City.

Mamdani contends that anti-Zionism is not antisemitism. He started the Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) chapter at Bowdoin College, publicly supports the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, defends the claim “globalize the intifada,” and declared that he would arrest Benjamin Netanyahu if he visits New York. Mamdani’s inner circle includes Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) and Linda Sarsour.

Mamdani refuses to recognize Israel as a Jewish state and seeks to “hold Israel accountable.” His dangerous positions and stance echoes the approach of those 1882 conference participants who sought to deny collective Jewry equal legal rights within their nations because of their perceived detrimental influence.

Mayor Bowser does not match up to Mamdani’s advocacy in this regard. Nevertheless, she has proven deliberately negligent to the aggressive anti-Israel activity in her city. Bowser has systematically refused to send police to discipline anti-Israel lawbreakers. Her administration has actively emboldened anti-Israel disruptors by instructing law enforcement not to act against increasingly aggressive demonstrations.

The impact of her negligence was evident in the assault of Rabbi Shmuel Herzfeld by anti-Israel actors while he prayed outside the Israeli embassy. It was also felt by George Washington University community members who faced weeks-long hostility at the unlawful Gaza encampment that originated at the campus and spread to D.C. streets. Only the night before she was slated to testify before the Congressional Oversight Committee, did Bowser finally send the Metropolitan Police Department to dismantle the encampment.

Mayor Bowser created a climate where anti-Jewish hostility and harassment were ripe for violence. Given the pre-existing intensity of antisemitism in New York, Mamdani’s endorsement of anti-Israel activity could produce a far more dangerous city landscape. The path from “globalize the intifada” chants to murders of Israeli embassy staffers illustrates what Mamdani’s supporters mean when they call for “resistance by any means necessary.”

Under Mamdani, New York would not merely follow the footsteps of what happened in D.C., but would surpass it. Where Bowser has shown deliberate negligence, Mamdani promises active encouragement of the very activity that seeded the murders in Washington. The consequences of transforming simple anti-Jewish attitudes into legal action or inaction are dire.

Mamdani’s defamatory comments about Israel are troubling — but so too is his radical platform, which appeals to voters drawn to a so-called “new” kind of politics. In reality, this politics is anything but new; it recycles decades-old socialist ideas that younger generations find novel and alluring only because they have not lived through their destructive consequences.

This kind of extremist politicking is a tactic of unification and mobilization. Mamdani’s socialism plays on anti-Enlightenment liberalism and disestablishmentarianism that was evident in late 19th-century Europe. Such ideologies lent, and continue to lend, anti-Jewish sentiments a broader appeal.

When progressive rhetoric masks age-old prejudices, and when calls for “justice” echo the very language used to promote systematic exclusion, we must recognize the pattern: The Dresden conference participants in 1882 believed they were defending their nations and values. They cloaked their agenda in the language of virtue, human rights, and protectionism.

The murders in Washington mark our contemporary Dresden moment — a dire warning of where political tolerance for hateful anti-Israel rhetoric leads. New York City, the city of dreams, deserves leadership that enforces the law to restore order. That governance must be committed to reducing hate, chaos, and crime. Americans cannot afford to let the spirit of 1882 find a home in 2025. While the voices of Democratic primary voters were heard on Tuesday night, the ultimate choice is up to New Yorkers in November.

Sabrina Soffer recently graduated from George Washington University and works with the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy (ISGAP). 

The post Warnings from Washington and Dresden: The Danger of Zohran Mamdani first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Judges, including Sarah Cleveland, arrive at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), during a ruling on South Africa’s request to order a halt to Israel’s Rafah offensive in Gaza, in The Hague, Netherlands, May 24, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Johanna Geron

If someone had told me 10 years ago that one of the biggest political movements in Europe would revolve around glorifying authoritarian regimes that kill women, oppress minorities, and chant for the destruction of a democratic state, I would’ve laughed.

But here we are.

Last week, 150,000 people took to the streets of The Hague, draped in red, waving Hezbollah flags and signs of support for the Iranian regime, screaming for the eradication of Israel. This happened in 2025 — in the Netherlands.

The crowd was not just angry men or fringe radicals, it was filled with Dutch girls in eyeliner and keffiyehs, influencers, students, and self-proclaimed feminists. All passionately backing regimes that would treat them like property, or worse.

What happened to Western values?

Let’s break this down.

These demonstrators claim to be standing up for “freedom” and “justice.” Yet they are parroting slogans fed to them by theocratic dictatorships like Iran, which hangs gay people from cranes, arrests women for showing hair, and tortures journalists for speaking the truth.

This is the same Iran that murdered Mahsa Amini in 2022 for not wearing her hijab properly. The same Iran that executed Navid Afkari, Ruhollah Zam, and dozens of teenage girls who dared to speak out or even sing without permission.

But hey, throw on a red hoodie, scream “Death to Israel,” and suddenly you’re the face of resistance?

Here’s what these red-dressed revolutionaries won’t tell you:

• In Israel, women can drive, vote, serve in government, and lead tech companies.
• In Israel, LGBTQ+ individuals live openly, serve in the military, and hold public office.
• In Israel, Arab citizens are doctors, judges, and journalists.
• And in Israel, you can criticize the government without disappearing in the middle of the night.

Meanwhile, in the regimes these demonstrators are supporting:

• Homosexuality is punishable by death.
• Women who speak out risk flogging or execution.
• Political dissent is met with bullets, poison, or the hangman’s noose.

So why the selective outrage?

It’s simple: Israel represents everything these protestors claim to value, but it’s Jewish, strong, and refuses to apologize for existing. That makes it a threat — not because of what it does, but because of what it is.

And this hatred? It isn’t new. It’s ancient, recycled, and repackaged in hashtags and protest posters. Antisemitism has just swapped its brownshirts for influencers and its swastikas for Palestinian flags.

It’s now trendy in some circles to hate the only democracy in the Middle East, not because it’s oppressive, but because it defends itself against actual oppression. The world, somehow, has gone mad.

In 2025, the real rebels are no longer those fighting for freedom in Tehran or Haifa — they’re the ones being canceled for defending a country that protects gay pride parades in the same week it’s under rocket attack.

To those who marched: You’re not standing up for peace. You’re standing with tyrants.

You’re not liberators. You’re their useful idiots.

And when you wear red, it’s not a symbol of rebellion, it’s the color of blood spilled by the very regimes you’re cheering for.

Israel isn’t perfect. No nation is. But it’s free. It’s democratic. And it stands on the front lines against terrorism, fanaticism, and fascism. The fact that this is controversial in 2025 says more about the state of the West than it does about Israel.

So go ahead, paint the streets red. But history won’t forget which side you chose when the dust settles.

And those of us who still believe in truth, freedom, and sanity, we’re not going anywhere.

Sabine Sterk is the CEO of Time to Stand Up for Israel.

The post Hate and Protests March in The Hague: How Europe Came to Love Iran and Hate Israel first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

A mourner holds an Israeli flag, ahead of the funeral of Israeli soldier Sergeant Maayan Baruch Pearlstein, who was killed amid the ongoing conflict in Gaza between Israel and Hamas, in Misgav, Israel, June 25, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Florion Goga

Gwyne Dyer, a widely syndicated British-Canadian columnist, who describes himself as a military historian knowledgeable about the Middle East, recently compared the number of civilian casualties in Gaza with the number of civilians killed in Ukraine from the ongoing Russian invasion. Dyer claims that about four times as many civilians have died in Gaza in about half the time.

Dyer’s comparison is like comparing apples and oranges. The war in Ukraine is a conventional war fought by uniformed soldiers from Russia (the attacker) and Ukraine. Ukrainian civilians die, or are injured, when the Russians aim their artillery, rockets, and drones at civilian targets, such as apartment buildings and markets. There are no Ukrainian military personnel systematically shooting at the Russians from civilian infrastructure.

In Gaza, it is the opposite. Hamas (the attacker) has weaponized the deaths and injuries of its own people by making it impossible to distinguish between combatants and civilians, and by placing and using weapons in civilian homes, in schools, and in hospitals. All of these are war crimes.

Nothing emphasizes the disregard by Hamas for the welfare of ordinary Palestinians more than the 500 kilometers of tunnels built over 18 years to protect Hamas combatants and weapons, not civilians. (Of course, the tunnels also hide the Hamas hostages, also a war crime.). Recently, senior Hamas official Sami Abu Zuhri played down the significance of Gaza casualties, saying, “Our women’s wombs will produce many more babies — 50,000 were born in Gaza during the war.”

Dyer, like the vast majority of the world’s news commentators, uses information on casualties provided by Hamas, a genocidal Islamist terrorist organization that has tyrannized the people of Gaza for the past 18 years.

Why should the numbers provided by Hamas (the Gaza Health Ministry), an organization that is against all progressive societal norms, including; a free press, gender equality, LGBQT+ rights, and free democratic elections — and which have proven to be false in the past — be taken at face value?

In fact, a detailed analysis of Hamas casualty reports by Andrew Fox, identifies errors and questionable counting by Hamas.

For example, the numbers may include natural deaths, and deaths from before the war started. And, of course, the numbers never mention how many were Hamas combatants. Yet, more than 90% of articles on Gaza in major English language news outlets accept and repeat the information Hamas provides.

The articles on Gaza never mention Hamas’ human shield strategy in Gaza. This means that Hamas is essentially erased as an active party in the conflict, instead placing full blame for civilian casualties on Israel. It is as if Israeli soldiers are not fighting a war, they just shoot unarmed civilians.

Looking back at the Gwynne Dyer article that I mentioned at the outset, there is one statistic missing. There is no mention of Israeli military casualties in Gaza.

I scan the news often, every day, and sometimes several times a day. I glance at the news emanating from my own country, Canada, also the US, and the UK, and of course the news from Israeli outlets. (A number of Canadian news sources, especially the Toronto Star and CBC, are consistently biased and negative when it comes to Israel.)

IDF casualties are always mentioned in the Israeli news, always by name and, sadly, quite often. They are usually a result of IEDs (improvised explosive devices), booby-trapped buildings (so many buildings in the Gazan city of Rafah have been booby-trapped), and snipers. IDF casualties in Gaza almost never come up in the reports published outside Israel.

IDF casualty statistics are easy to find since IDF casualties are published online and updated continuously. Excluding the hundreds of soldiers killed and thousands wounded in the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023, 435 Israeli soldiers have been killed and 2,740 wounded in Gaza thus far.

All civilian deaths and injuries in war are terrible and it is heartbreaking to read about the toll in Gaza, especially when it comes to children. The truth is, however, that Israel is fighting a war in Gaza against Hamas, the government of Gaza. Hamas is intentionally hiding among the civilian population of Gaza in order to maximize Palestinian civilian casualties. It is Hamas, not Israel, that is guilty of war crimes.

When David Baddiel wrote Jews Don’t Count (2021), he was trying to make the point that when it comes to racism and identity politics, Jews and antisemitism are usually not included. He was referring to live Jews. When Dara Horn wrote People Love Dead Jews (2021), she was referring to topics such as the global focus on the story of Anne Frank. It turns out that people don’t love dead Jews. They don’t even count them.

Jacob Sivak, a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, is a retired professor, University of Waterloo.

The post The Israeli Cost of the War in Gaza first appeared on Algemeiner.com.