Uncategorized
Mamdani’s victory is a watershed for Jewish progressives. For the mainstream, it’s wait-and-see.
Jewish leaders spent the final weeks of New York City’s mayoral race writing letters, delivering fiery sermons and sharing countless infographics warning about the threat an anti-Zionist mayor would pose for Jews.
Zohran Mamdani won anyway.
Now, those in charge of institutions that have shaped Jewish life in New York for decades are facing a new challenge: How to work with an incoming mayor after joining in a scorched earth campaign against him?
“I genuinely want to be like, ‘The water is warm — just come on in!’” said Audrey Sasson, chief executive of Jews for Racial and Economic Justice, a social justice group that campaigned aggressively for Mamdani. “It’s actually going to be so awesome.”
It’s safe to say many Jewish leaders are skeptical of Sasson’s invitation. The mayor-elect is such a divisive figure among Jewish New Yorkers — a majority of whom backed his opponents, exit polls showed — that a mere meeting with his transition team can be too inflammatory for some Jewish leaders to share publicly.
And yet the old guard will still need to work with the new mayor’s office. For example, UJA-Federation of New York, whose post-election statement vowed to hold Mamdani accountable, partners with health and human service agencies that receive millions of dollars from the city. Rabbis who signed a letter condemning Mamdani’s rhetoric will want the mayor to be attentive to their concerns.
“The Jewish community needs to figure out a way to work with the administration however possible,” said Amy Spitalnick, chief executive of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, which did not take a position on Mamdani’s candidacy.
Even Jewish groups whose entire focus is Israel and antisemitism hope the mayor-elect reaches out once he’s in office. Jewish on Campus, a student group, praised Mamdani this week for giving “voice to young New Yorkers on issues such as affordability” while simultaneously asking him to meet with pro-Israel leaders at local universities.
Interviews with community leaders revealed a range of approaches to managing a relationship with Mamdani. Some are anticipating a delicate balancing act, cooperating professionally even amid public disagreements. Others, bracing for the worst, may become resistance-like figures, expecting to go all-in on their opposition, as the Anti-Defamation League did in creating a Mamdani Monitor.
Navigating impasse
Jewish New Yorkers who criticized Mamdani for his stance on Israel had lots to point to.
He was reluctant to condemn “globalize the intifada,” a controversial slogan some Jews consider to be a call for violence, and he called Israel’s war in Gaza a genocide. As a state lawmaker, he introduced the Not On Our Dime bill, which he said would strip tax-exempt status from nonprofits that fund Israeli settler violence in the West Bank but which critics claimed targeted mainstream Jewish charities. He has raised the possibility of the city divesting from Israel bonds and said he would seek to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu if he traveled to New York City.
And Mamdani repeatedly declined to assert Israel’s right to exist “as a Jewish state,” instead stating his belief that Israel has a right to exist with equal rights for all.
Many seized on that as incontrovertible proof of Mamdani’s animus toward Jews who support Israel, unsatisfied by a later commitment to hire Zionists to work in his administration.But he also promised an eightfold increase in city funding for anti-hate crime initiatives, including security grants for houses of worship.
Hindy Poupko, UJA-Federation’s senior vice president of community strategy and external relations, doesn’t know which promises he’d make good on.
“The question is really for mayor-elect Mamdani: how is he going to work with us?” Poupko said. “He needs to demonstrate through actions and not just words that he will protect Jewish New Yorkers and that he will not seek to weaponize City Hall in an effort to demonize the State of Israel.”
There are reasons for Poupko to be optimistic.
Mamdani’s circle is stocked with people who have worked in the New York government for years — Bill de Blasio alumni, former Kathy Hochul advisers, Jewish state assemblymen — and with whom UJA-Federation and its dozens of local agencies have long-established professional relationships.
The strength of those ties may enable the federation to continue to lead opposition on Israel-related matters without undermining the work of partners like the Met Council, which fights hunger, or the Hebrew Free Burial Association.
“Our agencies will continue to work with relevant city agencies that they need to advance their priorities,” Poupko said. “We will continue our close partnership with NYPD to ensure that Jewish communities are safe, and at the same time, we will continue to make our values and priorities clear.”
Wait and see
Israel policy was not central to Mamdani’s campaign or his platform, and he has insisted that his focus as mayor will be on making New York safe and affordable for everyone. But that does not preclude him from taking steps to roll back the city’s cozyness with Israel. He has said, for example, that he plans to discontinue the New York City-Israel Economic Council established by current Mayor Eric Adams, who has professed his love for Israel and said he wants to retire in the Golan Heights.
And Mamdani could influence the future of Cornell Tech, a partnership between Cornell University and the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, whose campus is on city-owned Roosevelt Island. A Mamdani spokesperson told The New York Times prior to the election that Mamdani — who as an assemblyman urged a boycott of the campus — would “assess” the partnership if he won.
New York Solidarity Network, a pro-Israel advocacy group, issued multiple statements criticizing Mamdani during the campaign and executive director Sara Forman said she’s not waiting for a call from Mamdani’s office.
“What are we going to talk about?” Forman said. “I just don’t think there’s any moderation on his part in regard to many of the issues that the mainstream Jewish community holds dear.”
Like most of the leaders I spoke to, Forman was taking a wait-and-see approach to the mayor-elect. But she was also seeing a silver lining in his electoral breakthrough.
“A lot of Jews in New York are now awake,” she said, due to their anxiety about Mamdani. “We need to have more participation. And I think we’re going to get it.”
The new power brokers
While many of the largest Jewish groups absorbed the news of Mamdani’s win with trepidation, JFREJ’s Sasson was — in her words — “over the moon.”
The nonprofit, which works on a range of local issues that include housing and immigration and vocally opposed Israel’s war in Gaza, has been connected to the mayor-elect for years, and hundreds of its members canvassed for him.
“This campaign spoke our language,” Sasson said.
Sasson can now imagine a level of influence in city affairs that JFREJ has never before enjoyed.
Where some saw shades of antisemitism in Mamdani’s stances on Israel, JFREJ and other groups on the progressive Jewish flank — organizations such as Bend The Arc, T’ruah and IfNotNow — defended him. Bend The Arc wished Mamdani a “Mazal Tov!” after his victory in stark contrast to the omission of congratulations in statements issued by the UJA-Federation and other groups.
To Sasson, Mamdani’s victory — and the sizable Jewish support he received — is a sign that things are changing in New York as power flows away from traditional Jewish organizations and toward more progressive community nonprofits.
“The Jewish institutions that find themselves a little bit on the back foot right now, I think it’s a moment to do some reflecting and some of their own outreach,” Sasson said.
Spitalnick, who sits on the board of New York Jewish Agenda, a progressive umbrella group, said that while Jewish New Yorkers have “real, legitimate concerns about antisemitism, including the ways in which policies or rhetoric can play a role,” the response of some Jewish organizations threatened to sow division and fear and undermines Jewish safety in the long term.
The appropriate tack for Jewish organizations, Spitalnick said, was to build trust with the administration on areas of policy alignment, whether on crime or education or other issues, to fortify their relationship for moments of opposition.
“Part of what we need to do to advance Jewish safety,” she said, “is to engage across deep lines of disagreement.”
Jacob Kornbluh contributed reporting.
The post Mamdani’s victory is a watershed for Jewish progressives. For the mainstream, it’s wait-and-see. appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Antisemitism in Switzerland Hits Alarming Levels as Online Incidents Surge, Reports Warn
A pro-Hamas demonstration in Zurich, Switzerland, Oct. 28, 2023. Photo: IMAGO/dieBildmanufaktur via Reuters Connect
Antisemitism in Switzerland surged to alarming levels last year, with two reports released on Tuesday warning that hostility and violence targeting Jews are intensifying across the country amid the broader fallout from war involving Israel in the Middle East.
On Tuesday, the Intercommunity Coordination Against Antisemitism and Defamation (CICAD) released its 2025 annual report on hate crimes, documenting a 36 percent rise in antisemitic incidents against the local Jewish community in French-speaking Switzerland compared to 2024.
With a total of 2,438 antisemitic acts last year, CICAD’s latest report marks the highest level of such incidents since the organization began monitoring them in 2003.
Based on the latest data, the association warned of a worsening trend, with incidents classified as “grave and serious” rising 16 percent — from 109 cases in 2024 to 127 in 2025.
This week, the Swiss Federation of Jewish Communities (SIG), in collaboration with the Foundation Against Racism and Antisemitism (GRA), also released their annual report on antisemitic outrages in German-, Italian-, and Romansh-speaking Switzerland for the past year.
Their latest data also shows that antisemitism “remains at a persistently high level” across the country, with tensions further fueled by the ongoing war in the Middle East.
“Since Oct. 7, 2023, the war in the Middle East has been the main long-term trigger for antisemitic incidents in Switzerland,” the organizations wrote in their report, referring to the Hamas-led invasion of and massacre across southern Israel more than two years ago.
“This influence remained significant in 2025. No return to pre-Oct. 7 levels has been observed to date,” they continued.
SIG and GRA’s latest report found the biggest surge of antisemitic activity in online spaces, with 2,185 incidents recorded in 2025 — an increase of nearly 37 percent from 1,596 the previous year.
Most incidents took place on the Telegram messaging app, with online newspaper comments coming in second, and the bulk of the reported content centered on conspiracy theories.
With such figures, the report warned that antisemitism is no longer an isolated occurrence but a structural issue, cautioning against the normalization of antisemitic rhetoric.
Even though the study found that real-world antisemitic incidents fell to 177 in 2025 from 221 in 2024 — a decrease of roughly 20 percent — the number remains about three times higher than levels recorded before the Oct. 7 atrocities.
The GRA and SIG urged local authorities to ensure the sustainable protection of Jewish life in Switzerland, calling for long-term security measures, increased investment in prevention and education, and a stronger commitment to monitoring antisemitic threats.
“Effectively combating antisemitism is not a one-off task, but an ongoing responsibility of the state and society,” the report said.
Uncategorized
DOGE Staffers Used ChatGPT to Cut Holocaust History Grants During Counter-DEI Purges: Lawsuit
Elon Musk holds up a chainsaw onstage during the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in National Harbor, Maryland, US, Feb. 20, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Nathan Howard
The US Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) relied on the ChatGPT large language model program when deciding to cut grants for Jewish-related history programs, including one focused on violence against women during the Holocaust, according to a new class-action lawsuit.
DOGE staffer Justin Fox is named as one of the defendants in the suit filed in US federal court on Friday by the Authors Guild, which alleges that he was the one who developed the method of using ChatGPT prompts to determine which grants from the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) — also a defendant — to cut in the name of eliminating any programs related to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives.
Fox said in a deposition that he regarded any grant related to a minority group as qualifying as “DEI” and thus up for elimination. When asked about a grant he chose to cancel related to violence against women during the Holocaust, he responded, “It’s a Jewish — specifically focused on Jewish culture and amplifying the marginalized voices of the females in that culture.” Fox added, “It’s inherently related to DEI for that reason.”
The Trump administration has made a point of targeting DEI programs, especially on university campuses, arguing they foster bigotry by replacing merit with identity-based preferences. Many Jewish groups have criticized DEI initiatives for often excluding Jews, ignoring antisemitism, or characterizing Jews as white “oppressors” rather than as a historically oppressed minority group.
The lawsuit alleges that Fox and his fellow DOGE staffer Nathan Cavanaugh “made and executed the termination decision without any legal authority conferred by Congress. There is no jurisdictional barrier to vacating these unlawful terminations, and permanent relief is warranted.”
One of the projects targeted by DOGE was a translation project titled In the Shadow of the Holocaust: Short Fiction by Jewish Writers From the Soviet Union, which the lawsuit describes as “a critical, annotated translation into English of Yiddish and Russian works written in the aftermath of the most significant Jewish tragedy of the 20th century.”
ChatGPT put the book on the chopping block, stating that “this anthology explores Jewish writers’ engagement with the Holocaust in the USSR.”
According to the suit, the DOGE cuts “are unconstitutional several times over. The record establishes, without genuine factual dispute, that the terminations violated the First Amendment by targeting grants for their viewpoints and perceived political associations; that they violated the equal protection guarantee by classifying grants based on race, sex, and other constitutionally protected characteristics.”
DOGE also allegedly targeted Catholic efforts to promote Holocaust studies. The suit notes that another grant Fox and Cavanaugh chopped was support for the National Catholic Center for Holocaust Education at Seton Hill University.
In a deposition, NEH’s acting chair Michael McDonald said he did not know DOGE had relied on ChatGPT and rejected including Holocaust-related grants under DEI. He also claimed DOGE ignored his disagreements. DOGE possessed the final say about which projects to cut.
In response to the question “In your view, does this grant relate to DEI?” McDonald answered “no.” When the lawyer followed up with “would you consider this to be wasteful spend?” he replied “I would not, no.”
Since the NEH’s founding in 1965, the agency has provided over $6 billion in grants to fund over 70,000 projects in all 50 states.
The lawsuit details that Fox and Cavanaugh lacked “any relevant background in the humanities, public or private grant administration, peer review, or government service of any kind prior to joining the administration.”
According to the filing, the two DOGE staffers met with McDonald and Assistant Chair for Programs Adam Wolfson on March 12. However, Fox and Cavanaugh “entirely controlled the process of selecting grants to terminate and executing the terminations — their approach was top-down, viewpoint- and race-based, and indifferent to the views of NEH leadership or the ordinary processes of grant administration.”
DOGE’s mastermind, billionaire Elon Musk, has a professional rivalry with Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI, which developed ChatGPT.
Musk faced multiple controversies last year involving alleged antisemitism, Nazis, and the Holocaust. Following his decision to make a gesture at a Jan. 20 rally which many interpreted as resembling a “Sieg Heil”-style salute, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) initially defended the billionaire before criticizing his choice to promote Holocaust humor on his X social media platform.
“We’ve said it hundreds of times before and we will say it again: the Holocaust was a singularly evil event, and it is inappropriate and offensive to make light of it. Elon Musk, the Holocaust is not a joke,” Jonathan Greenblatt, the ADL’s CEO and National Director, wrote on X in response to Musk.
Musk faced criticism days later when addressing a gathering of Germany’s far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, where he said, “There is too much focus on past guilt, and we need to move beyond that.” Critics decried the comments, arguing they minimized or dismissed the Holocaust.
“The remembrance and acknowledgement of the dark past of the country and its people should be central in shaping the German society,” Dani Dayan, chairman of Yad Vashem, Israel’s national memorial to the Holocaust, said in response to Musk on X. He warned that not focusing on learning lessons from the past is “an insult to the victims of Nazism and a clear danger to the democratic future of Germany.”
In July, following an upgrade to Musk’s ChatGPT rival Grok, the program began promoting antisemitic conspiracy theories and in one instance labeled itself “MechaHitler.”
Two months later, the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) and the Jewish Council for Public Affairs (JCPA) released a report revealing the rise of antisemitism on X.
The report utilized OpenAI’s since-discontinued GPT-4o model and drew on a year-long investigation to find that “679,000 posts sampled violate X’s policies on antisemitism, and posts identified as antisemitic got 193 million views in the 11 months of this report, despite X’s promises to limit their visibility. Also, antisemitic conspiracies appear to perform disproportionately well on X, constituting 59% of posts in the sample but 73% of likes.”
The report noted that X had allowed for the rise of so-called “antisemitic influencers” and that “approximately one third of all likes on antisemitic posts were on posts shared by just 10 antisemitism ‘influencers.’ 9 out of these 10 ‘antisemitism influencers’ have more followers on X than any other platform, and 6 out of the 10 are verified on X. 3 out of the 10 profit from paid subscriptions on X.”
Amid the criticism, Musk has denied accusations of antisemitism and said his priority is to make X a bastion of free speech. He visited Israel in late 2023, weeks after Hamas’s Oct. 7 invasion of the Jewish state, and Auschwitz in January 2024. Following the latter trip, Musk said he was “frankly naive” about antisemitism and described himself as “Jewish by association.”
The Tesla CEO and X owner vowed to wear around his neck a dog tag reading “Bring Them Home” that was given to him by a parent of one of the Israeli hostages held in Gaza until all the captives were returned home.
Uncategorized
Trump’s Iran dithering puts Israel in an unprecedented position
Israel today finds itself in an unusual strategic position: It’s fighting a war that could last for weeks — or end almost instantly. And someone else will decide which way things go.
Down one path lies a prolonged campaign against Iran, with the possibility of regime change. Israel’s leaders openly hope that the campaign will enable the Iranian people to overthrow their rulers. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently put it bluntly: “Our aspiration is to enable the Iranian people to cast off the yoke of tyranny.”
Down the other is a rapid cessation of the conflict, with incomplete results. President Donald Trump has already suggested that the conflict may be nearing completion. In a Monday interview with CBS News, Trump said bluntly: “The war is very complete, pretty much.”
Yet in the very same news cycle, Trump offered a strikingly different message. When asked whether the war was essentially over or just beginning, he replied: “I think you could say both.” He suggested he was considering the possibility of taking control of the Strait of Hormuz, the critical global oil chokepoint, and warned on social media that if Iran interfered with shipping there, the United States would strike it “20 times harder than they have been hit thus far.”
Those contradictory statements capture the extraordinary ambiguity surrounding the conflict. And that ambiguity has left Israel in a profoundly complicated position. Now, it must be prepared simultaneously for two radically different scenarios: a prolonged war whose outcome could reshape the Middle East, or a sudden declaration that the conflict is over.
A successful start, and mixed outlook
So far, Israeli and American forces have struck deep inside Iran, decapitating the regime and crippling major parts of military infrastructure. Iran has retaliated with missile and drone attacks against Israel, most of which have been intercepted by Israel’s air defenses, but some of which have brought tragedy.
In recent days, Tehran has picked a new supreme leader: Mojtaba Khamenei, a hardliner and the son of the longtime despot killed on the first day of the war.
If the conflict continues on this trajectory, the implications could be enormous. Sustained pressure on Iran could destabilize the regime. Even without that best-case scenario outcome, a prolonged campaign could dramatically weaken the Islamic Republic.
But a long war carries real dangers. Iran still possesses missiles capable of reaching Israel, and has been firing them daily. Israel’s multilayered defense system intercepts most of them, but not all. A cluster missile strike on Monday killed two; if the war continues, more deaths are likely to follow. And the longer the war lasts, the greater the statistical likelihood that one missile will slip through and cause a true catastrophe.
Even without a disaster, the cumulative strain on Israeli society is unmistakable. The acquisition of weapons and callup of reserve troops is further disrupting an economy that has been in various states of disruption since Oct. 7, 2023. It is also measured in the unquantifiable damage that the stress is causing pretty much every person in the country.
Many businesses are closed, and public life is minimal. Missile alerts — often in the middle of the night — repeatedly send millions of civilians into shelters (and, for a privileged minority, reinforced “safe rooms” in their home). Many offices are half empty. Parents struggle to work while caring for children who are afraid to leave the house.
With ordinary life on hold, a prolonged war could therefore become a grinding economic and psychological burden, even if Israel continues to win militarily.
Yet Israelis broadly support the war. A poll last week found that 93% of the populace backs the operation.
How will they respond if Trump abruptly pulls the plug?
War by whim
To a degree that is profoundly unusual in the history of democratic countries, the trajectory of the war depends largely on one person.
Trump has shown himself to be prone to making unilateral decisions with enormous consequences for the international order without undergoing any of the standard processes.
He launched sweeping tariff wars that upended decades of bipartisan policy on the benefits of relatively free trade. He revived the idea that the U.S. should acquire Greenland — and for weeks refused to rule out using force against Denmark, a NATO ally, to achieve that end. Earlier this year, American forces kidnapped Venezuela’s president, after which Trump openly stated that the U.S. needs “access” to the country’s oil resources.
Even the rhetoric surrounding the Iran campaign is sui generis. In recounting why American forces had sunk Iranian naval vessels rather than capturing them, he approvingly relayed that he was supposedly told by commanders that it was simply “more fun to sink them.”
If Trump decides he is done, and the Islamic Republic limps on, Israelis will be left with the frustrating sense of having missed a huge opportunity to fundamentally alter an unacceptable situation in which Iran is constantly scheming to cause harm.
Iran has been, essentially, a fly the size of an elephant buzzing in Israel’s ear. Yes, the war will be spun as victory either way — but if it ends tomorrow, it will end without achieving all it could. And the current state of affairs, in which Israel effectively has a green light from a U.S. president as indifferent to convention as Trump, may not return.
A reopened Lebanon front
One complication that could outlast either of these scenarios is Hezbollah. The Lebanon-based militia, a regional proxy for Iran, joined the fighting almost immediately, launching rockets and drones toward northern Israel. That intervention may give Israel a strategic opportunity to address a problem that has festered since post-Oct. 7 fighting ended on the Lebanon front in November, 2024.
When that conflict concluded, the Lebanese government pledged that it would dismantle and disarm Hezbollah, finally restoring the state’s monopoly on force. In practice, little changed. Hezbollah remained entrenched in parts of central Lebanon, albeit no longer along Israel’s border.
Israeli patience with this renewed status quo has steadily eroded. But the devastation of the Gaza war had badly damaged Israel’s international standing, making Jerusalem see a renewed Lebanon campaign as diplomatically difficult.
Now, the regional picture has shifted. Lebanese officials — including the country’s president — have increasingly signaled that Hezbollah’s continued militarization is unsustainable. Beirut has in recent days already taken steps to curb Iranian influence, including by restricting activity by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Senior figures have made clear that Hezbollah’s role as an armed “state within a state” cannot continue indefinitely.
Elements of Lebanon’s government clearly hope Israel might finish a task they cannot accomplish themselves — the decisive debilitation of Hezbollah — though preferably without bringing another devastating war onto Lebanese soil.
What this means: Israel is likely to be at war, in some way or another, for some time to come. Trump may call time on the war with Iran; he has no such power when it comes to Israel’s own border conflicts.
But the biggest challenges, and biggest changes, facing Israel belong with the Iran war, which has the potential to truly redefine the region. Netanyahu may wield some influence over Trump, but the decision rests with the White House.
This is an unprecedented state of affairs in Israel’s history: A perilous war of aggression, conducted without real Israeli control. The cost of this is whiplash, as the country has no choice but to live with both possibilities at once: a long war that could reshape the region — or a sudden declaration that the war has been won. Netanyahu may be able to influence Trump one way or the other — but he won’t make the call.
For Israelis, that is the rub in the hyper-alliance with Trump’s U.S. Next month, as Israel celebrates its 78th Independence Day, that independence will feel a tad fictitious. An extreme dependency lies bare for all to see, and it will outlive Trump. His successor may not be as munificent.
The post Trump’s Iran dithering puts Israel in an unprecedented position appeared first on The Forward.