RSS
The Predictable Rise of Zohran Mamdani — and His Congressional Appeasers
Zohran Mamdani. Photo: Ron Adar / SOPA Images via Reuters Connect
Zohran Mamdani, the State Assemblyman and Democratic nominee for New York City mayor, was dealt another reason to celebrate this week, when it was revealed that the young socialist had won the most votes ever in a New York City primary.
While many of Mamdani’s progressive comrades are reveling in their candidate’s electoral success, his commanding victory on June 24 is leaving establishment Democrats concerned, confused, and in shock.
Yet for those who have kept a discerning eye on the left-wing trajectory of the Democratic Party, the ascendance of a politician such as Mamdani came as no surprise, and was in fact entirely predictable.
What first began in 2019 as an unwillingness to disassociate from an energized leftist cohort of lawmakers entering Congress, has now evolved into a troubling pattern of Democrats failing to reject candidates espousing dangerous anti-American and antisemitic positions.
Mamdani, the presumptive next mayor of New York City, is transparent about his hatred for Israel, and his tolerance of violent threats against Jews. His election poses a direct threat to the safety and security of Jewish residents in America’s largest city.
Thirty-six hours following the October 7 massacre, the lawmaker, in a statement on X, blamed the “ongoing violence” on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israel’s government.
He has made no attempts to scrub his social media of his depraved posts, which include flipping the middle finger at a Christopher Columbus statue, and calling Jew-hating Democratic Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) his hero.
Despite being given repeated opportunities to condemn the phrase “Globalize the Intifada,” a term used as a rallying cry to murder Jews, Mamdani defends its use, and often reverts to speaking about his broader objective to root out “all bigotry.”
For their part, New York’s Democratic Congressional delegation is buckling under the progressive weight of their party.
With the exception of Long Island Congresswoman Laura Gillen (D-NY), who said that Socialist Mamdani is “too extreme” to lead New York City, the state’s liberal lawmakers are refusing to rule out endorsing the socialist in the general election, while delivering varying statements on Mamdani’s defense of the “Globalize the Intifada” phrase.
When pressed to repudiate Mamdani’s defense of the violent expression, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) stated in an interview on MSNBC that Mamdani should “clarify his position” on the use of the term, which he admits is “unacceptable.”
The State’s senior Senator, Chuck Schumer, who will likely face a primary challenge from the left when he is up for reelection in 2028, carefully curated his words and condemned the phrase without mentioning Mamdani directly.
Schumer’s Democratic colleague, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand’s, efforts to denounce Mamdani for failing to discredit “Globalize the Intifada” was soon eclipsed by the Junior Senator walking back her harsh words and apologizing to the mayoral nominee for saying in that same interview that Mamdani had made references to “global jihad.”
Even Bronx Congressman Ritchie Torres, who objects to the jihadi slogan, is tempering any distancing from Mamdani and saying that he is “committed to a working relationship with him.”
Indeed, once radicals like Omar or Mamdani gain power, Democrats embark on a roadmap of expressing displeasure with some of their views, while simultaneously employing political jargon centering on “engagement,” “discussion,” and “conversation,” as if Mamdani’s fanatical positions emanate from a sincere misreading of the issues rather than being anchored to a deeply held anti-American worldview.
Americans were clued into this strategy years ago, when then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) agreed to a 2019 Rolling Stone photo shoot alongside members of the new insurgent wing of the party, including Democratic Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY) and Ilhan Omar (MN).
Democrats weren’t about to reject this new faction of disruptors and leftist ideologues; they were going to lean in and learn from them.
As such, in the coming weeks, New Yorkers can expect more Democratic officials to follow the lead of New York Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Jerry Nadler, both of whom have endorsed Mamdani.
It’s worth noting that Jeffries has officially supported anti-Israel figures in the past, with the Minority Leader formally backing disgraced former Congressman Jamaal Bowman during last year’s Democratic primary in New York’s 16th Congressional District.
Combined with the actions of major unions, such as the United Federation of Teachers (UFT), announcing their endorsement of Mamdani earlier this week, it’s hard to envision a scenario under which Democrats launch a serious counterweight to Mamdani’s threatening candidacy.
And while those who live outside the city’s liberal ecosystem are quick to indicate that a nominee as radical as Mamdani could never rise to power in their region, most Democrats dominating the national political landscape harbor little will to wrest control away from radicals in their party.
Senior Editor of Commentary Magazine, Seth Mandel, recently wrote about Senators Chris Murphy (D-CT) and Andy Kim’s (D-NJ) departure from the pro-Jewish sympathies of their predecessors.
As Mandel notes, over the last year, Sens. Murphy and Kim both voted to block arms sales to Israel, just as the Jewish State was battling Iran’s terrorist proxies.
Murphy has also praised Mamdani, calling him a “dynamic” and “new voice.”
Their hostility towards Israel may not present in the same dramatic fashion as Mamdani’s — but their objective conveys a similar desire to complete the progressive sea change in the Democratic Party, albeit through the more palatable and cultured Congressional process.
After years of accommodating anti-Israel politicians, Mamdani’s candidacy is an unsettling testament to the consequences of indifference, and that hard-left antisemitic politicians may no longer be outliers, but reflect a frightening and new normal.
Irit Tratt is a writer who resides in New York. Follow her on X @Irit_Tratt.
The post The Predictable Rise of Zohran Mamdani — and His Congressional Appeasers first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Harvard Faculty Oppose Deal With Trump, Distancing From Hamas Apologists: Crimson Poll
Harvard University president Alan Garber attending the 373rd Commencement Exercises at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, US, May 23, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Brian Snyder
A recently published Harvard Crimson poll of over 1,400 Harvard faculty revealed sweeping opposition to interim university President Alan Garber’s efforts to strike a deal with the federal government to restore $3 billion in research grants and contracts it froze during the first 100 days of the second Trump administration.
In the survey, conducted from April 23 to May 12, 71 percent of arts and sciences faculty oppose negotiating a settlement with the administration, which may include concessions conservatives have long sought from elite higher education, such as meritocratic admissions, viewpoint diversity, and severe disciplinary sanctions imposed on students who stage unauthorized protests that disrupt academic life.
Additionally, 64 percent “strongly disagree” with shuttering diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, 73 percent oppose rejecting foreign applicants who hold anti-American beliefs which are “hostile to the American values and institutions inscribed in the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence,” and 70 percent strongly disagree with revoking school recognition from pro-Hamas groups such as the Palestine Solidarity Committee (PSC).
“More than 98 percent of faculty who responded to the survey supported the university’s decision to sue the White House,” The Crimson reported. “The same percentage backed Harvard’s public rejection of the sweeping conditions that the administration set for maintaining the funds — terms that included external audits of Harvard’s hiring practices and the disciplining of student protesters.”
Alyza Lewin of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law told The Algemeiner that the poll results indicate that Harvard University will continue to struggle to address campus antisemitism on campus, as there is now data showing that its faculty reject the notion of excising intellectualized antisemitism from the university.
“If you, for example, have faculty teaching courses that are regularly denying that the Jews are a people and erasing the Jewish people’s history in the land of Israel, that’s going to undermine your efforts to address the antisemitism on your campus,” Lewin explained. “When Israel is being treated as the ‘collective Jew,’ when the conversation is not about Israel’s policies, when the criticism is not what the [International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism] would call criticism of Israel similar to that against any other country, they have to understand that it is the demonization, delegitimization, and applying a double standard to Jews as individuals or to Israel.”
She added, “Faculty must recognize … the demonization, vilification, the shunning, and the marginalizing of Israelis, Jews, and Zionists, when it happens, as violations of the anti-discrimination policies they are legally and contractually obligated to observe.”
The Crimson survey results were published amid reports that Garber was working to reach a deal with the Trump administration that is palatable to all interested parties, including the university’s left-wing social milieu.
According to a June 26 report published by The Crimson, Garber held a phone call with major donors in which he “confirmed in response to a question from [Harvard Corporation Fellow David M. Rubenstein] that talks had resumed” but “declined to share specifics of how Harvard expected to settle with the White House.”
On June 30, the Trump administration issued Harvard a “notice of violation” of civil rights law following an investigation which examined how it responded to dozens of antisemitic incidents reported by Jewish students since the 2023-2024 academic year.
The correspondence, sent by the Joint Task Force to Combat Antisemitism, charged that Harvard willfully exposed Jewish students to a torrent of racist and antisemitic abuse following the Hamas-led Oct. 7 massacre, which precipitated a surge in anti-Zionist activity on the campus, both in the classroom and out of it.
“Failure to institute adequate changes immediately will result in the loss of all federal financial resources and continue to affect Harvard’s relationship with the federal government,” wrote the four federal officials comprising the multiagency Task Force. “Harvard may of course continue to operate free of federal privileges, and perhaps such an opportunity will spur a commitment to excellence that will help Harvard thrive once again.”
The Trump administration ratcheted up pressure on Harvard again on Wednesday, reporting the institution to its accreditor for alleged civil rights violations resulting from its weak response to reports of antisemitic bullying, discrimination, and harassment following the Oct. 7, 2023 massacre.
Citing Harvard’s failure to treat antisemitism as seriously as it treated other forms of hatred in the past, The US Department of Educationthe called on the New England Commission of Higher Education to review and, potentially, revoke its accreditation — a designation which qualifies Harvard for federal funding and attests to the quality of the educational services its provides.
“Accrediting bodies play a significant role in preserving academic integrity and a campus culture conducive to truth seeking and learning,” said Secretary of Education Linda McMahon. “Part of that is ensuring students are safe on campus and abiding by federal laws that guarantee educational opportunities to all students. By allowing anti-Semitic harassment and discrimination to persist unchecked on its campus, Harvard University has failed in its obligation to students, educators, and American taxpayers.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
The post Harvard Faculty Oppose Deal With Trump, Distancing From Hamas Apologists: Crimson Poll first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Balancing Act: Lebanese President Aoun Affirms Hope for Peace with Israel, Balks At Normalization
Lebanese President Joseph Aoun attends a joint press conference with French President Emmanuel Macron at the Elysee Palace in Paris, France, March 28, 2025. REUTERS/Sarah Meyssonnier/Pool
Lebanese President Joseph Aoun on Friday carefully affirmed his country’s desire for peace with Israel while cautioning that Beirut is not ready to normalize relations with its southern neighbor.
Aoun called for a full Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory, according to a statement from his office, while reaffirming his government’s efforts to uphold a state monopoly on arms amid mounting international pressure on the Iran-backed terror group Hezbollah to disarm.
“The decision to restrict arms is final and there is no turning back on it,” Aoun said.
The Lebanese leader drew a clear distinction between pursuing peace and establishing formal normalization in his country’s relationship with the Jewish state.
“Peace is the lack of a state of war, and this is what matters to us in Lebanon at the moment,” Aoun said in a statement. “As for the issue of normalization, it is not currently part of Lebanese foreign policy.”
Aoun’s latest comments come after Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar expressed interest last month in normalizing ties with Lebanon and Syria — an effort Jerusalem says cannot proceed until Hezbollah is fully disarmed.
Earlier this week, Aoun sent his government’s response to a US-backed disarmament proposal as Washington and Jerusalem increased pressure on Lebanon to neutralize the terror group.
While the details remain confidential, US Special Envoy Thomas Barrack said he was “unbelievably satisfied” with their response.
This latest proposal, presented to Lebanese officials during Barrack’s visit on June 19, calls for Hezbollah to be fully disarmed within four months in exchange for Israel halting airstrikes and withdrawing troops from its five occupied posts in southern Lebanon.
However, Hezbollah chief Sheikh Naim Qassem vowed in a televised speech to keep the group’s weapons, rejecting Washington’s disarmament proposal.
“How can you expect us not to stand firm while the Israeli enemy continues its aggression, continues to occupy the five points, and continues to enter our territories and kill?” said Qassem, who succeeded longtime terrorist leader Hassan Nasrallah after Israel killed him last year.
“We will not be part of legitimizing the occupation in Lebanon and the region,” the terrorist leader continued. “We will not accept normalization [with Israel].”
Last fall, Israel decimated Hezbollah’s leadership and military capabilities with an air and ground offensive, following the group’s attacks on Jerusalem — which they claimed were a show of solidarity with the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas amid the war in Gaza.
In November, Lebanon and Israel reached a US-brokered ceasefire agreement that ended a year of fighting between the Jewish state and Hezbollah.
Under the agreement, Israel was given 60 days to withdraw from southern Lebanon, allowing the Lebanese army and UN forces to take over security as Hezbollah disarms and moves away from Israel’s northern border.
However, Israel maintained troops at several posts in southern Lebanon beyond the ceasefire deadline, as its leaders aimed to reassure northern residents that it was safe to return home.
Jerusalem has continued carrying out strikes targeting remaining Hezbollah activity, with Israeli leaders accusing the group of maintaining combat infrastructure, including rocket launchers — calling this “blatant violations of understandings between Israel and Lebanon.”
The post Balancing Act: Lebanese President Aoun Affirms Hope for Peace with Israel, Balks At Normalization first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Peace Meals: Chef José Andrés Says ‘Good People’ On Both Sides of Gaza Conflict Ill-Served By Leaders, Food Can Bridge Divide
Chef and head of World Central Kitchen Jose Andres attends the Milken Institute Global Conference 2025 in Beverly Hills, California, US, May 5, 2025. Photo: Reuters/Mike Blake.
Renowned Spanish chef and World Central Kitchen (WCK) founder José Andrés called the Oct. 7 attack “horrendous” in an interview Wednesday and shared his hopes for reconciliation between the “vast majority” on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian divide who are “good people that very often are not served well by their leaders”
WCK is a US-based, nonprofit organization that provides fresh meals to people in conflict zones around the world. The charity has been actively serving Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank since the Oct. 7 massacre in southern Israel. Since the Hamas attack, WCK has served more than 133 million meals across Gaza, according to its website.
The restaurateur and humanitarian has been quoted saying in past interviews that “sometimes very big problems have very simple solutions.” On Wednesday’s episode of the Wall Street Journal podcast “Bold Names,” he was asked to elaborate on that thought. He responded by saying he believes good meals and good leaders can help resolve issues between Israelis and Palestinians, who, he believes, genuinely want to live harmoniously with each other.
“I had people in Gaza, mothers, women making bread,” he said. “Moments that you had of closeness they were telling you: ‘What Hamas did was wrong. I wouldn’t [want] anybody to do this to my children.’ And I had Israelis that even lost family members. They say, ‘I would love to go to Gaza to be next to the people to show them that we respect them …’ And this to me is very fascinating because it’s the reality.
“Maybe some people call me naive. [But] the vast majority of the people are good people that very often are not served well by their leaders. And the simple reality of recognizing that many truths can be true at the same time in the same phrase that what happened on October 7th was horrendous and was never supposed to happen. And that’s why World Central Kitchen was there next to the people in Israel feeding in the kibbutz from day one, and at the same time that I defended obviously the right of Israel to defend itself and to try to bring back the hostages. Equally, what is happening in Gaza is not supposed to be happening either.”
Andres noted that he supports Israel’s efforts to target Hamas terrorists but then seemingly accused Israel of “continuously” targeting children and civilians during its military operations against the terror group.
“We need leaders that believe in that, that believe in longer tables,” he concluded. “It’s so simple to invest in peace … It’s so simple to do good. It’s so simple to invest in a better tomorrow. Food is a solution to many of the issues we’re facing. Let’s hope that … one day in the Middle East it’ll be people just celebrating the cultures that sometimes if you look at what they eat, they seem all to eat exactly the same.”
In 2024, WCK fired at least 62 of its staff members in Gaza after Israel said they had ties to terrorist groups. In one case, Israel discovered that a WCK employee named Ahed Azmi Qdeih took part in the deadly Hamas rampage across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. Qdeih was killed in an Israeli airstrike in Gaza in November 2024.
In April 2024, the Israel Defense Forces received backlash for carrying out airstrikes on a WCK vehicle convoy which killed seven of the charity’s employees. Israel’s military chief, Lt. Gen. Herzi Halevi, said the airstrikes were “a mistake that followed a misidentification,” and Israel dismissed two senior officers as a result of the mishandled military operation.
The strikes “were not just some unfortunate mistake in the fog of war,” Andrés alleged.
“It was a direct attack on clearly marked vehicles whose movements were known by” the Israeli military, he claimed in an op-ed published by Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot. “It was also the direct result of [the Israeli] government’s policy to squeeze humanitarian aid to desperate levels.”
In a statement on X, Andres accused Israel of “indiscriminate killing,” saying the Jewish state “needs to stop restricting humanitarian aid, stop killing civilians and aid workers, and stop using food as a weapon.”
The post Peace Meals: Chef José Andrés Says ‘Good People’ On Both Sides of Gaza Conflict Ill-Served By Leaders, Food Can Bridge Divide first appeared on Algemeiner.com.