Uncategorized
A history of Mel Brooks as a ‘disobedient Jew’
(JTA) — Jeremy Dauber subtitles his new biography of Mel Brooks “Disobedient Jew.” It’s a phrase that captures two indivisible aspects of the 96-year-old director, actor, producer and songwriter.
The “Jew” is obvious. Born Melvin Kaminsky in Brooklyn in 1926, Brooks channeled the Yiddish accents and Jewish sensibilities of his old neighborhoods into characters like the 2000 Year Old Man — a comedy routine he worked up with his friend, the writer and director Carl Reiner. He worked Jewish obsessions into films like 1967’s “The Producers,” which features two scheming Jewish characters who stage a sympathetic Broadway musical about Hitler in order to bilk their investors.
Brooks’ signature move is to inject Jews into every aspect of human history and culture, which can be seen in the forthcoming Hulu series “History of the World, Part II.” A sequel to his 1981 film, “History of the World, Part I,” it parodies historical episodes in a style he honed as a writer on 1950s television programs such as “Your Show of Shows,” whose writers’ rooms were stocked with a galaxy of striving Jewish comedy writers just like him.
The “Disobedient” part describes Brooks’ relationship to a movie industry that he conquered starting in the early 1970s. In a series of parodies of classic movie genres — the Western in “Blazing Saddles,” the horror movie in “Young Frankenstein,” Alfred Hitchcock in “High Anxiety — he would gently, sometimes crudely and always lovingly bite the hand that was feeding him quite nicely: In 1976, he was fifth on the list of top 10 box office attractions, just behind Clint Eastwood.
Dauber describes the parody Brooks mastered as “nothing less than the essential statement of American Jewish tension between them and us, culturally speaking; between affection for the mainstream and alienation from it.”
Dauber is professor of Jewish literature and American studies at Columbia University, whose previous books include “Jewish Comedy” and “American Comics: A History.” “Mel Brooks: Disobedient Jew” is part of the Jewish Lives series of brief interpretative biographies from Yale University Press.
Dauber and I spoke about why America fell for a self-described “spectacular Jew” from Brooklyn, Brooks’ lifelong engagement with the Holocaust, and why “Young Frankenstein” may be Brooks’ most Jewish movie.
Our conversation was edited for length and clarity.
Jewish Telegraphic Agency: “History of the World, Part II” comes out March 6. “History of the World, Part I” may not be in the top tier of Brooks films, but it seems to touch on so many aspects of his career that you trace in your book: the parody of classic movie forms, the musical comedy, injecting Jews into every aspect of human civilization, and the anything-for-a-laugh sensibility.
Jeremy Dauber: I agree. There’s the one thing that really brings it home, and it’s probably the most famous or infamous scene from the film. That’s the Spanish Inquisition scene. You have Brooks sort of probing the limits of bad taste. He had done that most famously in “The Producers” with its Nazi kickline, but here he takes the same idea — that one of the ways that you attack antisemitism is through ridicule — and turns the persecution of the Jews into a big musical number. It’s his love of music and dance. But the thing that’s almost the most interesting about this is that he takes on the role of the Torquemada character.
As his henchman sing and dance and the Jews face torture, the Brooklyn-born Jew plays the Catholic friar who tormented the Jews.
That’s right. And what’s the crime that he accuses the Jews of? “Don‘t be boring! Don‘t be dull!” That’s the worst thing that you can be. It’s his way of saying, “If I have a religion, you know, it is show business.”
His fascination with showbiz seems inseparable from his Jewishness, as if being a showbiz Jew is a denomination in its own right.
One of my favorite lines of his is when he marries [actress] Anne Bancroft, who of course is not Jewish. And he says, “She doesn’t have to convert: She’s a star.” If you’re a star, if you’re a celebrity, you’re kind of in your own firmament faith-wise, and so it’s okay. Showbiz is this faith. But it is very Jewish, because show business is a way to acceptance. It’s a way that America can love him as a Jew, as Mel Brooks, as a kid from the outer boroughs who can grow up to marry Anne Bancroft.
Jeremy Dauber is the author of “Mel Brooks: Disobedient Jew” (Yale University Press)
You write early on that “Mel Brooks, more than any other single figure, symbolizes the Jewish perspective on and contribution to American mass entertainment.” On one foot, can you expand on that?
Jews understand that there’s a path to success and that being embraced by a culture means learning about it, immersing yourself in it, being so deeply involved in it that you understand it and master it. But simultaneously, you’re doing that as a kind of outsider. You’re always not quite in it, even though you’re of it in some deep way. In some ways, it’s the apotheosis of what Brooks does, which is being a parodist. In order to be the kind of parodist that Mel Brooks is, you have to be acutely attuned to every aspect of the cultural medium that you’re parodying. You have to know it inside and outside and backwards and forwards. And Brooks certainly does, but at the same time you have to be able to sort of step outside of it and say, you know, “Well, I’m watching a Western, but come on, what’s going on with these guys? Like why doesn’t anyone ever, you know, pass gas after eating so many beans?”
You have this great phrase, that to be an American Jew is to be part of the “loyal opposition.”
That’s right. Brooks at his best is always kind of poking and prodding at convention, but loyally. He’s not like the countercultural figures of his day. He’s a studio guy. He’s really within the system, but is poking at the system as well.
You wrote in that vein about his 1963 short film, “The Critic,” which won him an Oscar. Brooks plays an old Jewish man making fun of an art film.
On the one hand, he’s doing it in the voice of one of his older Jewish relatives, the Jewish generation with an Eastern European accent, to make fun of these kinds of intellectuals. He’s trying to channel the everyman’s response to high art. “What is this I’m watching? I don’t understand this at all.” On the other hand, Brooks is much more intellectual than he’s often given credit for.
For me the paradox of Brooks’ career is conveyed in a phrase that appears a couple of times in the book: “too Jewish.” The irony is that the more he leaned into his Jewishness, the more successful he got, starting with the “2000 Year Old Man” character, in which he channels Yiddish dialect in a series of wildly successful comedy albums with his friend Carl Reiner. How do you explain America’s embrace of these extremely ethnic tropes?
Brooks’ great motion pictures of the late 1960s and 1970s sort of track with America’s embrace of Jewishness. You have “The Graduate,” which came out at around the same time as “The Producers,” and which showed that someone like Dustin Hoffman can be a leading man. It doesn’t have to be a Robert Redford. You have Allan Sherman and all these popular Jewish comedians. You have “Fiddler on the Roof” becoming one of Broadway’s biggest hits. That gives Brooks license to kind of jump in with both feet. In the 1950s, writing on “The Show of Shows” for Sid Caesar, the Jewishness was there but in a very kind of hidden way. Whereas, it’s very hard to watch the 2000 Year Old Man and say, well, that’s not a Jewish product.
What he also avoided — and here I will contrast him with the novelist Philip Roth — were accusations that he was “bad for the Jews.” Philip Roth was told that his negative portrayals of Jewish characters was embarrassing the Jews in front of the gentiles, but for some reason, I don’t remember anyone complaining even though the Max Bialystock character in “The Producers” can be fairly described as a conniving Jew. What made Brooks’ ethnic comedy more palatable to other Jews?
“The Producers” had a lot of pushback, but for a lot of other reasons.
I guess people had enough to deal with when he staged a musical comedy about Hitler.
Exactly. But the other part is that his biggest films are not as explicitly Jewish as something like Roth’s novel “Portnoy’s Complaint.” I actually think “Young Frankenstein” is one of the most Jewish movies that Mel Brooks ever made, but you’re not going to watch “Young Frankenstein” and say, wow, there are Jews all over the place here.
What about “Young Frankenstein,” a parody of classic horror movies, seems quintessentially Jewish?
The script, which is a lot of Gene Wilder and not just Mel Brooks, is really about someone saying, “You know, I don’t have this heritage — I’m trying to fit in with everybody else. My name is Dr. FRAHNK-en-shteen.” And then people say, “No, this is your heritage. You are Dr. Frankenstein.” [Wilder’s character realizes] “it is my heritage, and I’m embracing it. And I’m Frankenstein. And you may find that monstrous but that’s your business.” It’s about assimilation and embracing who you are.
And of course, Wilder as Dr. Frankenstein is unmistakably Jewish, even when he plays a cowboy in “Blazing Saddles.”
Right. Again, by the mid-’70s, you know, you have Gene Wilder and Elliot Gould and Dustin Hoffman, all Jews, in leading roles. “Young Frankenstein” ends up being a movie about coming home and embracing identity, which is playing itself out a lot in American Jewish culture in the 1970s.
I guess I have to go back and watch it for the 14th time with a different point of view.
That’s the fun part of my job.
You talk about what’s happening at the same time as Brooks’ huge success, which is, although he’s a little younger, the emergence of Woody Allen. You describe Brooks and Woody Allen as the voice of American Jewish comedy, but in very different ways. What are the major differences?
Gene Wilder, who worked with both of them, says that working with Allen is like lighting these tiny little candles, and with Brooks, you’re making big atom bombs. The critical knock against Brooks was that he was much more interested in the joke than the story. And I think with the exception maybe of “Young Frankenstein” there’s a lot of truth to that. The jokes are phenomenal, so that’s fine. Allen pretty quickly moved towards a much more narrative kind of film, and so began to be seen as this incredibly intellectual figure. In real life, Allen always claimed that he wasn’t nearly as intellectual as everyone thought, while Brooks had many more kinds of intellectual ambitions than the movie career that he had. There is a counterfactual world in which “The 12 Chairs,” his 1970 movie based on a novel by two Russian Jewish novelists and which nobody talks about, makes a ton of money.
Instead, it bombs, and he makes “Blazing Saddles,” which works out very well for everybody.
Although he does create Brooksfilms, and produces more narrative, serious-minded films like “The Elephant Man” and “84 Charing Cross Road.”
Right, and decides that if he puts his name on these as a director, they’re going to be rejected out of hand. There is a shelf of scholarship on Woody Allen, but if you look at who had influence on America in terms of box office and popularity, it’s Brooks winning in a walk.
You also mention Brooks and Steven Spielberg in the same sentence. Why do they belong together?
Partly because they had huge popular success in the mid-’70s. Brooks is a generation older, but they are hitting their cinematic success at the same time. And they are both movie fans.
Which comes out in their work — Brooks in his film parodies and Spielberg in the films that echo the films he loved as kid.
Until maybe his remake of “West Side Story,” Spielberg is not really a theater guy in the way that Brooks is, when success meant to make it on Broadway. When Brooks was winning all those Tonys in 2001 for the Broadway musical version of “The Producers,” it may have been almost more meaningful for his 5-year-old, or 7- or 8-year-old self than making his incredibly popular pictures.
You also write about Brooks being a small “c” conservative, a bit of a square. Which I think will surprise people who think about the fart jokes and the peepee jokes and all that stuff. And by square, I mean, kind of old showbizzy, even a little prudish sometimes.
I think that’s right. There’s a great moment that I quote at the end of the book where they are trying out the musical version of “The Producers,” and they want to put the word “f–k” in and Brooks is like, “I don’t know if we can do that on Broadway,” and Nathan Lane is like, “Have we met? You’re Mel Brooks!” He’s a 1950s guy.
Another place where this kind of conservatism comes in is when you compare him to other comedians of the 1950s and ’60s — the so-called “sick comics” like Lenny Bruce and Mort Sahl who were pushing the envelope in terms of subject matter and politics. He wasn’t part of that. He was part of Hollywood. He was trying to make it in network television.
There is an interview in that era when he complained that people who are writing for television are not “dangerous.” Meanwhile, he himself was writing for television. But I think it’s fair to say that “The Producers” was really something different. You didn’t have to be Jewish to be offended by “The Producers.” But as we were saying before, he is more of the loyal opposition, rather than sort of truly out there. He’s not making “Easy Rider.”
An exhibit space at the Museum of Broadway evokes the scenery from the Mel Brooks musical “The Producers.” (NYJW)
“The Producers” is part of Brooks’ lifelong gambit of mocking the Nazis, I think starting when he would sing anti-Hitler songs as a GI in Europe at the tail end of World War II. Later he would remake Jack Benny’s World War II-era anti-Nazi comedy, “To Be or Not to Be.” And then there is the quick “Hitler on Ice” gag in “History of the World, Part I.” Brooks always maintains that mocking Nazis is the ultimate revenge on them, while you note that Woody Allen in “Manhattan” makes almost the opposite argument: that the way to fight white supremacists is with bricks and baseball bats. Did you come down on one side or the other?
To add just a twinge of complication is the fact that Brooks actually fought Nazis, and also had a brother who was shot down in combat. So for me to sit in moral judgment on anybody who fought in World War II is not a place that I want to be. What’s interesting is that Brooks makes a lot of these statements over the course of a career in which Nazism is done, in the past, defeated. Tragically, the events of the last number of years made white supremacy and neo-Nazism a live question again. When “The Producers” was staged as a musical in the early 21st century, people could say, “Okay, Nazism’s time has passed.” It’s not clear to me that we would restage “The Producers” now as a musical on Broadway, when just last week you had actual neo-Nazis handing out their literature outside a Broadway show. It would certainly be a lot more laden than it was in 2001.
Time also caught up with Brooks in his depiction of LGBT characters. Gay characters are the punchlines in “The Producers” and “Blazing Saddles” in ways that have not aged well. But you also note how both movies are about two men who love each other, to the exclusion of women.
There’s an emotive component to him about these male relationships. Bialystok and Bloom [the protagonists in “The Producers”] is a kind of love story. One of the interesting things is that as it became comparatively more comfortable for gay men to live their truth in society and in Hollywood, there was an evolution. In that remake of “To Be or Not to Be,” there is a much more sympathetic gay character who’s not stereotypical.
What other aspects of Brooks’ Jewishness have we not touched upon? For instance, he’s not particularly interested in Judaism as a religion, and ritual and theology rarely come up in his films, even to be mocked.
It’s not something that he’s particularly interested in. To him, being Jewish is a voice and a language. From the beginning of his career the voice is there. What he’s saying in these accents is that this is Jewish history working through me. It is, admittedly, a very narrow slice of Jewish history.
The first- and second-generation children of Jewish immigrants growing up in Brooklyn neighborhoods that were overwhelmingly Jewish.
It was a Jewishness that was aspirational. It was intellectual. It was a musical Jewishness. It was not in the way we use this phrase now, but it was a cultural Jewishness. It was not a synagogue Jewishness or a theological Jewishness. But of course he is Jewish, deeply Jewish. He couldn’t be anything else. And so he didn’t, and thank God for that.
—
The post A history of Mel Brooks as a ‘disobedient Jew’ appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
How Mira Nair and Mahmood Mamdani’s politics shaped New York City’s new mayor
(New York Jewish Week) — When he sat down for an interview in November with the Chronicle of Higher Education, Mahmood Mamdani offered one parameter: “Let’s not talk about the mayor thing.”
It was just two days after the Columbia University professor had taken the stage alongside his wife and daughter-in-law after his son Zohran had been elected mayor of New York City, winning more than 50% of the vote in a three-way race.
Zohran Mamdani, a 34-year-old democratic socialist with a long track record of pro-Palestinian activism, has said he counts his father as one of his political inspirations.
But Mahmood Mamdani preferred to talk about his own record, as a professor of anthropology and international affairs and a longstanding pro-Palestinian activist who was the first faculty member to address the Gaza war encampment on his campus.
His wife, filmmaker Mira Nair, and Zohran’s wife, the artist Rama Duwaji, likewise are respected in their fields and well known for their pro-Palestinian advocacy and adherence to the movement to boycott Israel.
Zohran Mamdani has described the BDS movement as “consistent with the core of my politics,” and in 2023 introduced a bill while serving as an assemblymember that sought to block nonprofits from funding Israeli settlements in the West Bank.
While it is unclear the extent to which Mamdani will pursue BDS policies during his upcoming mayoral term, his politics and those of his parents reflect a shared alignment with pro-Palestinian causes.
“When you’re the kid of two parents who are very involved in social justice, a lot of times what you remember as a playdate was you being at some rally or some march,” Mamdani recalled in an interview with City & State in April 2023.
Now, as Zohran takes the city’s reins, here’s what you need to know about his immediate family.
Mahmood Mamdani, viewing Israel through an anti-colonial lens
Long before his son’s mayoral campaign, Mahmood Mamdani, 79, was known widely as one of the foremost scholars on colonialism and postcolonial politics in Africa. Born in India in 1946, Mamdani was raised in Kampala, Uganda at a time when the country was racially segregated. After receiving his bachelors, masters and doctorate from universities in the United States, Mamdani was expelled from Uganda in 1972 after Ugandan President Idi Amin ordered all Asians to leave the country.
Since 1999, he has been a professor of government at Columbia University, and has published several books and essays on colonialism and political violence including “Citizen and Subject: Contemporary Africa and the Legacy of Late Colonialism” in 1996 and “Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: America, the Cold War, and the Roots of Terror” in 2004.
As a scholar, Mahmood Mamdani is best known for his analysis of colonial rule and how it shapes the identities of both the occupied and occupiers. In his 2020 book, “Neither Settler nor Native: The Making and Unmaking of Permanent Minorities,” he uses case studies that include Nazi Germany, Israelis and Palestinians and post-apartheid South Africa.
Mamdani has spoken directly and repeatedly about how his broader scholarship shapes his thinking on Israel and Palestinians. “The issue is not settlers, but settler colonialism,” he wrote in “Neither Settler nor Native.” In 2021, during an 11-day outbreak of violence between Hamas and Israel that was sparked by tensions in Jerusalem, Mamdani wrote on X, “Palestinians have a right to resist. This is a colonial occupation, not a conflict!”
Three days later, as Hamas and Israel exchanged missiles and airstrikes, Mamdani wrote that the conflict was not between Israel and Hamas, but rather the resurgence of a third intifada.
“The resistance this time began in Jerusalem and spread to Gaza, now the West Bank and Palestinian communities beyond. This is not a conflict between Israel and Hamas,” wrote Mamdani in a post on X. “We are witnessing something far more meaningful, the birth of the Third Intifadah against settler colonialism!”
In 2002, as the second intifada was in full force, Mamdani signed onto a petition calling for Columbia University to divest from companies supplying arms to Israel, saying at the time his support for the petition was to make a “moral statement registering concern over the exercise of power by Israel.”
In the Chronicle of Higher Education interview, Mahmood Mamdani spoke about being the first faculty member to address the pro-Palestinian protesters who set up an encampment at Columbia in 2024. He said his talk focused on “lessons of the divestment movement in South Africa.”
In a 2022 Zoom lecture at the Carter G. Woodson Institute of the University of Virginia, Mahmood Mamdani argued that while there was reason to give “full and enthusiastic support” to the BDS movement, he cautioned against the movement extending its boycotts against the breadth of “Israeli society and not just to its Zionist sectors.”
During his lecture, Mamdani also argued that Israel must learn from the dissolution of the South African apartheid, saying that the only way forward in the region was if there was an “epistemic revolution” in Israel where they realized the “flourishing of Jews and Jewish life does not require a Zionist state.”
“Whites did not need to monopolize political power to have a home in South Africa. It is this lesson that needs to be driven home to Israelis, as many as possible, that Jews do not need to have a Jewish state to have a secure home in Israel-Palestine,” said Mamdani. “Indeed, Jews are more secure in New York City than they are in Israel.”
Asked whether he supports a one-state solution, Mamdani recently told The Chronicle, “I’m sympathetic to only one type of one state, a state which is based on rule of law and guarantees equal rights,” a position his son echoed on the campaign trail. “I’m opposed to any kind of discrimination. I’m opposed to any form of apartheid which I understand to be a legally enforced distinction between two groups in society, where one benefits and the other is penalized.”
In an interview with The Nation in January 2024, Mamdani criticized the public response to the pro-Palestinian protests erupting across the U.S., saying that conflating anti-Zionism with antisemitism was a danger to democracy.
“To conflate the critique of a state with the critique of a people poses a challenge to a democratic culture,” he said. In his recent Chronicle interview, Mamdani pointed favorably to the Jerusalem Declaration definition of antisemitism, signed by over 200 mostly Jewish scholars, which insists that the movement to boycott Israel is not in and of itself antisemitic. The declaration, he said, “makes a very clear distinction between the State of Israel and the people of Israel,” as opposed to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition.
In a January 2024 letter published in the Columbia Spectator, Mahmood Mamdani criticized the school for dissuading the use of the words “intifada” and “from the river to the sea,” arguing that excluding them would “rule out any meaningful dialogue on Israel and Palestine on this campus.” (He told the Chronicle that the “river to the seas” concept appears in the Likud party manifesto, which declares that “between the [Mediterranean] Sea and the Jordan [River] there will only be Israeli sovereignty.” He also claimed that he had not actually heard “from the river to the sea” chanted in Columbia’s quad, and had only read about it.)
Zohran Mamdani similarly downplayed rhetoric that many Israel supporters consider incendiary. In June he declined to condemn the phrase “globalize the Intifada,” arguing that the phrase symbolized a “desperate desire for equality and equal rights in standing up for Palestinian human rights.” (Mamdani later said he would “discourage” the use of the phrase, which many supporters of Israel, recalling two violent uprisings of Palestinians in 1987 and 2000 that killed hundreds of Israelis, see as a call to violence.)
At an appearance on the encampments, Mamdani described charges of antisemitism as “part of the currency the administration uses to demonize protests like this,” according to the Columbia Spectator.
Critics of the elder Mamdani say he underplays Jewish historical vulnerability and antisemitism, minimizes Palestinian political agency and their internal divisions, and ignores the way Zionism differs from European colonialism. But like his son, he believes even younger Jews are increasingly adopting his critique of Israel and Zionism.
In a December interview with Peter Beinart for Jewish Currents, a leftist magazine, he said he believed the Jewish diasporic community would play an “important role” in discussions over the “Palestinian question” in the future.
“Jewish children in New York City have become increasingly skeptical of the direction in which Israel has been moving, and increasingly disillusioned with both the moral and the political efficacy of that route and increasingly open to explore an alternative,” said Mamdani.
Mira Nair, a supporter of cultural boycotts
Nair is an award-winning Indian-American filmmaker whose debut 1988 film, “Salaam Bombay!,” earned her an Academy Award nomination for Best Foreign Language Film. She also directed several acclaimed films including “Mississippi Masala” in 1991, “Monsoon Wedding” in 2001 and “The Namesake” in 2006.
Born in India, she met Mahmood Mamdani in Uganda in 1989, and they married two years later. Nair was also married to the Jewish photographer Mitch Epstein from 1981 to sometime before 1989; he has declined JTA’s requests for an interview.
Nair has also been an outspoken critic of Israel and a supporter of petitions backing the Boycott, Divest and Sanctions movement.
In 2013, Nair declined an invitation to the Haifa International Film Festival. “I will not be going to Israel at this time. I will go to Israel when the walls come down. I will go to Israel when occupation is gone,” she tweeted at the time. In a subsequent post, she added that she stood with the BDS movement.
In March of this year, Nair signed onto a petition calling for the Academy Awards to remove Israeli actress Gal Gadot from its ceremony, accusing her of showing “support for Israel’s military actions against Palestinians,” according to an Instagram post by the group.
Following the election of her son, Nair has also declined to discuss Mamdani’s attitudes towards Jews and Israel in an interview with The Hollywood Reporter.
“What I love so much about Zohran is that he embraces the multiplicity of our lives in the most natural way — this mosaic that is our city but that no one has seen until this young man came along,” Nair told The Hollywood Reporter of her son.
Rama Duwaji, an artist with a political vision
Mamdani’s wife, Rama Duwaji, whom he married this year, has also made pro-Palestinian advocacy a focal point of her work in ceramics, animation and illustrations.
While Duwaji has largely refused interviews with the press and did not appear at campaign events or fundraisers, last month she sat for her first interview post election with The Cut.
“Speaking out about Palestine, Syria, Sudan — all these things are really important to me,” Duwaji told The Cut. “I’m always keeping up to date with what’s going on, not just here but elsewhere. It feels fake to talk about anything else when that’s all that’s on my mind, all I want to put down on paper.”
“Everything is political; it’s the thing that I talk about with [Zohran] and my friends, the thing that I’m up to date with every morning, which is probably not great for my mental health. It’s what I talk about when I check on my family back home,” continued Duwaji.
During the interview Duwaji also discussed the meaning behind part of her election night outfit —- a black top designed by Zeid Hijazi, a London-based Palestinian-Jordanian label.
“It’s nice to have a little bit of analysis on the clothes because, for instance, during the general-election night, it was nice to send a message about Palestinians by wearing a Palestinian designer,” said Duwaji.
Duwaji, 28, who is ethnically Syrian and grew up in Texas and Dubai, also frequently posts illustrations that advocate for pro-Palestinian causes on her Instagram account. Her art has been featured in The New Yorker, The Washington Post, the BBC, and VICE, according to her website.
https://www.instagram.com/p/DNQ85ehpSo6/?hl=en
In August, she posted an animation of the Palestinian flag along with the words “end the genocide,” and posted another last month depicting the Global Sumud Flotilla.
In March, she posted an illustration of Mahmoud Khalil, a pro-Palestinian student activist at Columbia University, calling for his release after he was detained by the Trump administration amid its campaign to purportedly combat campus antisemitism.
“This is an attack on freedom of speech, and sets a scary f—king precedent for anyone who speaks up for what’s right. Resist,” wrote Duwaji.
“He’s his own person”
In an interview with the New York Times in June, Mahmood Mamdani spurned suggestions that his politics had an outsized impact on his son’s political views.
“He’s his own person,” Mamdani said. “Now, of course what we do as his parents is part of the environment in which he grew up, and he couldn’t help but engage with it. That doesn’t mean anything is reflected back on us.”
But Nair was quick to disagree, telling the Times that her son had “very much absorbed” his parents’ politics, which largely center on anti-colonialism.
“I don’t agree!” Ms. Nair said. “Of course the world we live in, and what we write and film and think about, is the world that Zohran has very much absorbed.”
The post How Mira Nair and Mahmood Mamdani’s politics shaped New York City’s new mayor appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
How Jewish politics are shaping the 2026 election map, from coast to coast
(JTA) — After a year in which Israel, antisemitism and political polarization scrambled long-standing alliances, the American Jewish political map is heading into 2026 unusually unsettled.
From New York City Hall to swing-state governors’ mansions to some of the most crowded Democratic primaries in memory, the coming election cycle will test how much Jewish voters still cohere as a political bloc — and whether the issues that have dominated Jewish life since Oct. 7 will continue to shape the ballot box. The rise of outspoken pro-Palestinian candidates, fractures inside both parties over Israel, and the growing visibility of antisemitism on the left and the right have turned races that might once have seemed parochial into national bellwethers.
As Democrats and Republicans jockey for control of Congress and key statehouses, Jewish candidates and Jewish issues are no longer confined to the margins. Instead, they are central — sometimes uncomfortably so — to debates about ideology, identity and power. These are the big political questions facing the American Jewish community as 2026 approaches.
The Mamdani era begins
After the most closely watched — and, in some Jewish corners, feared — mayoral race in generations, Zohran Mamdani will be sworn in as New York City’s next chief executive on the first day of the year. For many Jews, both in and beyond New York, 2026 will be measured by how the democratic socialist mayor will wield his power and influence once in office — and by how many candidates in the midterms are able to follow in his footsteps when it comes to explicit pro-Palestinian activism.
Ahead of his inauguration, Mamdani seemed to heed some of the Jewish alarms over his harsh criticism of Israel. During his transition he dismissed a staffer over her past antisemitic posts; met with the New York Board of Rabbis, which include some vocal critics of his; and, after the deadly attack on a Hanukkah celebration in Australia, visited the grave of the Lubavitcher Rebbe.
Tensions remain. The Anti-Defamation League has launched a controversial monitoring project focused on his administration. He also still pledges to arrest Benjamin Netanyahu should the Israeli prime minister visit New York, a threat that Netanyahu has shrugged off.
Once he takes power, Mamdani’s outreach efforts to Jews will continue to be closely scrutinized, as will Jewish leaders’ willingness to be in the same room with him — or to discourage, or encourage, further attacks on him.
Seismic shifts on the right
Republicans could have seized upon the rise of Mamdani as an effort to appeal to worried Jews ahead of the midterms as the pro-Isael, anti-antisemitism party. Instead, the GOP now seems unsure what it thinks about Jews at all.
While President Donald Trump says he remains resolutely pro-Israel, and many establishment Jewish groups continue their eagerness to work with him, his second-in-command JD Vance has opened the door to a rising tide of anti-Israel and anti-Jewish sentiment on the party’s hyper-nationalist wing. At Turning Point USA’s annual convention, Vance declined to join the critics of conservative antisemitism, and instead encouraged the party to widen its tent.
Meanwhile, conservative thought leaders such as the Heritage Foundation and Turning Point USA, which have wielded power to vet and promote GOP candidates, have opened doors to outright conspiratorial talking points about Jewish and Israeli power, via figures such as open antisemite Nick Fuentes and podcaster Tucker Carlson, who has offered him a friendly platform.
Already some Republican candidates, driven by “America First” ideology and their disdain for U.S. aid to Israel, are taking explicitly anti-Israel platforms. Florida gubernatorial hopeful James Fishback, for example, has pledged to refuse donations from AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobby, and praised Heritage for its defense of the Carlson-Fuentes interview. “Why is it that when we’re critical of Israel, it feels like a fourth branch comes out to almost criminalize our speech?” the Gen Z hedge-fund manager has said.
And in the Ohio gubernatorial race, the biotech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy — who as a 2024 presidential candidate was one of the first major figures of his party to suggest cutting aid to Israel — appears to be the likely GOP nominee. He will likely face a Jewish Democratic candidate, former state health official Dr. Amy Acton.
A test for Josh Shapiro
A Jewish governor with a national profile, Josh Shapiro is seeking reelection in November. Stacy Garrity, his GOP opponent, is the only person to earn more votes in Pennsylvania history than Shapiro when she was elected state treasurer in 2024. A popular moderate with a reputation as a humanitarian war hero, Garrity hopes to unite the state as Shapiro did, despite her record of boosting election denials. She’ll remind Jewish voters that she boosted the state’s Israel bond investments.
An upset — seen by insiders as unlikely but not impossible — could put a screeching halt to talk of Shapiro becoming the first Jewish president.
The Upper West Side story
Few Democratic primaries this year promise to be more circus-like than the race for the Manhattan district being vacated by longtime Jewish Rep. Jerry Nadler, a progressive on domestic issues who could read the haftarah at synagogue one day and offer what he considered loving criticism of Israel the next. Nine candidates have so far thrown their hats in, including three big Jewish names with very different takes on Jewish issues.
The favorite is New York State Assembly member Micah Lasher — a close confidant of Nadler. But Lasher’s path to the nomination is far from guaranteed, especially if progressives want to send a message to a Democratic establishment that they are unhappy for a range of reasons — including Israel.
Enter Cameron Kasky, a survivor of the Parkland High School shooting and Jewish Gen Z political activist. The 25-year-old, courting pro-Palestinian voters, has already made fighting “support for genocide” a central plank of his campaign (he recently returned from a pro-Palestinian solidarity mission to the West Bank). And Kasky isn’t alone among Jewish candidates popular with the online left: Jack Schlossberg, 32, a Kennedy scion with millions of social media followers, is running on what he describes as the “cost-of-living crisis” and erosion of democratic norms under Republican leadership.
Threading the needle on Israel
As support for Israel erodes in the Democratic party and in portions of the right, a number of Jewish candidates insist that there is room for progressive Jewish voices who can be critical of Israeli policy. A number of declared Jewish candidates this year are looking to represent this vanguard. In many cases they’re vying to replace long-serving Jews and/or stalwart Democratic leaders.
Kasky exemplifies the trend. But progressive Brad Lander, the Jewish New York City comptroller and Mamdani ally, may have a clearer path to Congress: He is challenging Jewish Rep. Dan Goldman, a more typically pro-Israel lawmaker, for his House seat, and early polling has given him an advantage.
Scott Wiener, a state senator in California, is running for the seat being vacated by retiring Democratic figurehead Nancy Pelosi. Wiener holds conventionally left-of-center views on housing reform, civil rights, LGBTQ+ issues, climate and tech regulation and has pushed for antisemitism prevention in schools. He has also publicly condemned actions by the Netanyahu government.
And Daniel Biss, the progressive Jewish Israeli mayor of Evanston, Illinois, is running in the Chicago-area congressional district previously held by retiring Jewish Rep. Jan Schakowski. Like many pro-Israel centrists, he’s an advocate of the two-state solution, but has veered to their left by calling for an early ceasefire in Gaza and for pausing offensive U.S. weapons sales to the Israeli government amid the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. He is facing, amid a slew of challengers, the leftist Palestinian-American influencer Kat Abugazelah.
Israel and the midterms
Months after the tentative ceasefire, will voter sentiment about the Gaza war have an impact on midterm races? AIPAC, whose endorsements were once courted by politicians, is now seen as toxic by candidates who have been reading the tea leaves. Case in point: Rep. Seth Moulton, the Massachusetts Democrat, has publicly said he will return the campaign donations he previously received from AIPAC and will not accept future support from the organization.
In New York’s 15th Congressional District race, where Democratic Rep. Ritchie Torres is seeking reelection, former state assemblyman and ex‑Democratic National Committee vice chair Michael Blake has made Torres’s pro‑Israel stance a central issue of his campaign. Blake has accused Torres of prioritizing U.S. support for Israel over his constituents’ needs, including alleging that Torres’s positions effectively support what Blake calls a “genocide” — language that has drawn criticism from local Jewish leaders.
In the Michigan Senate race, Rep. Haley Stevens, a non-Jewish pro-Israel stalwart who previously won AIPAC’s support over progressive Jewish incumbent Andy Levin, is the favorite in the race right now. But she faces two progressive challengers, including one, former county health executive Abdul el-Sayed, who has also labeled Israel’s military campaign in Gaza as “genocide” and opposes U.S. military aid to Israel.
A Jewish hopeful for New York governor
Bruce Blakeman is the first Jewish county executive of Long Island’s Nassau County. He shouldered aside former frontrunner Elise Stefanik, upstate’s fiery Trump ally and scourge of college presidents, for both Trump’s endorsement and the likely Republican nomination to challenge Gov. Kathy Hochul. Blakeman’s hawkish pro‑Israel advocacy aligns him with the segment of the Republican base that emphasizes strong U.S.-Israel ties and opposition to movements like BDS. In the 2026 governor’s race, he’s likely to draw a contrast with Democrats, even if Hochul herself has strong pro-Israel bona fides.
Much ado about a tattoo
Graham Platner, the progressive Maine Senate candidate running in what Democrats see as a must-win race, has refused to quit following revelations that the military veteran had a Nazi-era tattoo on his chest for years. Even after shedding staff and facing fiery condemnations over both the tattoo and derogatory comments he made on Reddit, a defiant Platner is still polling within range of establishment candidate Gov. Janet Mills ahead of the June 9 Democratic primary.
Could the oyster farmer (who has claimed he didn’t know what the tattoo was, and covered it up following the revelations) actually pull off the upset primary win? Like Mamdani and several other progressive candidates this year, Platner also holds ardently pro-Palestinian views and has accused Israel of genocide. The elder statesman of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, has shrugged off questions about his tattoo, giving it a Jewish stamp of non-concern.
The post How Jewish politics are shaping the 2026 election map, from coast to coast appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Mayor Zohran Mamdani reassures Jewish New Yorkers at inauguration: ‘I will protect you’
Zohran Mamdani’s swearing-in at City Hall on Thursday afternoon highlighted the full diversity of New York City and included a striking display of Jewish presence and pride during a historic change in leadership.
In a scene rich with symbolism, Sen. Bernie Sanders, who once ran to become the nation’s first Jewish president, administered the oath of office to the city’s first Muslim mayor as Mamdani placed his hand on a Quran.
Looking on from the dais was Sen. Chuck Schumer, the highest-ranking elected Jewish official in the United States. Jewish actor Mandy Patinkin, who hosted Mamdani for Hanukkah, led a musical performance with elementary school students from Staten Island. A bagel and lox schmear even got a mention during Mamdani’s inaugural remarks.
Mamdani’s vision of New York City
Mamdani, a democratic socialist and Israel critic whose surprise rise divided the city’s Jewish community, used his address to cast New York as a shared civic project shaped by its many languages and faiths. “The authors of this story will speak Pashto and Mandarin, Yiddish and Creole,” he said. “They will pray in mosques, at shul, at church, at Gurdwaras and Mandirs and temples — and many will not pray at all.”
The new mayor also mentioned Russian Jewish immigrants in Brighton Beach, who, along with other immigrant communities, came to America with a dream of a better life and nodded to his own upbringing deeply rooted in Jewish culture. “Where else could a Muslim kid like me grow up eating bagels and lox every Sunday,” Mamdani said, a line that drew cheers from the crowd.
Mamdani, a supporter of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement against Israel, drew louder applause when he acknowledged Palestinian New Yorkers in Bay Ridge, saying that under his tenure, they “will no longer have to contend with a politics that speaks of universalism and then makes them the exception.” Mamdani faced fierce backlash during the Democratic primary for defending the slogan “globalize the intifada,” used by some at the pro-Palestinian protests and perceived by many as a call for violence against Jews. In the inauguration crowd was Mahmoud Khalil, the Columbia University graduate who was held for deportation for his role in pro-Palestinian protests.
Mamdani also pledged to divest from city investments in Israel. This commitment could create a clash with Mark Levine, the incoming city comptroller, who has pledged to repurchase the bonds as part of the city’s portfolio. “This has been a rock-solid investment for decades,” he said. “Israel has never missed a bond payment, and a good, balanced portfolio should have global diversity.”
Levine, who is Jewish, took the oath of office on the Five Books of Moses, called the Chumash. “How remarkable is it that on these steps today, we have three swearings-in,” Levine said, “One by a leader using a Quran, one by a leader using a Christian Bible, and one by a leader using a Chumash or Hebrew Bible. I am proud to live in a city where this is possible.”
Mamdani orders new antisemitism office to stay open
In a signing ceremony for his first three executive orders, Mamdani announced that he will keep open the recently-created mayor’s office to combat antisemitism. “That is an issue that we take very seriously,” he told reporters. Former Mayor Eric Adams used the office to counter antisemitism, including pursuing a measure adopting the controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism, which considers most forms of anti-Zionism as antisemitic.
According to the executive order about the structure of the city government, the second measure Mamdani signed after the ceremony, the office will lead efforts to reduce antisemitism and anti-Jewish hate crimes using existing resources and act as a liaison between the city and the Jewish community on safety and security issues. It would regularly advise Mamdani on public education, tracking enforcement cases and reviewing city materials for bias.
Mamdani also issued an executive order revoking all previous executive orders issued by Adams after September 26, 2024, the day of his indictment on federal bribery and fraud charges. That includes the June 2025 measure adopting the IHRA antisemitism definition.
At the inauguration, Mamdani addressed skeptics directly, in a move to lower the temperature after a polarizing campaign. “I know there are some who view this administration with distrust or disdain, or who see politics as permanently broken,” he said. “And while only action can change minds, I promise you this: if you are a New Yorker, I am your mayor. Regardless of whether we agree, I will protect you, celebrate with you, mourn alongside you, and never, not for a second, hide from you.”
The Anti-Defamation League, which clashed with Mamdani during the election and launched a “Mamdani Monitor” to track and scrutinize the new administration’s appointments, said in a statement on Thursday that while holding him actions, the advocacy group will “stand ready to engage constructively” with the new mayor.
On City Hall steps and in the plaza

The ceremony featured a benediction delivered by Imam Khalid Latif, executive director of the Islamic Center at NYU, who co-founded the NYU ‘Of Many’ Institute for Multifaith Leadership with Rabbi Yehuda Sarna. Appearing alongside the Imam was Rabbi Ellen Lippmann, founder and rabbi emerita of Kolot Chayeinu/Voices of Our Lives in Brooklyn and a board member of the progressive Jews For Racial & Economic Justice.
Levine, who speaks fluent Hebrew and Spanish, used the Hebrew terms for welcome and thank you in his remarks as the city’s new comptroller. “Welcome, everyone. What a joy that you came,” he said in Hebrew, after using similar terms in Spanish and Greek. “To those of you who don’t understand Spanish, Hebrew or Greek, welcome, thank you, and please download Duolingo,” he quipped.
Patinkin, an early supporter of Mamdani who appeared in a get-out-the-vote video with the candidate during the campaign, performed “Somewhere over the Rainbow” with the PS22 Chorus of Staten Island.
Rep. Jerry Nadler, co-chair of the Congressional Jewish Caucus, sat on the dais next to Schumer, who refused to endorse Mamdani during the election.
Among the 4,000 guests was Rabbi Moshe Indig, the leader of the Hasidic Satmar Ahronim faction who endorsed Mamdani in the general election. Also present were some Orthodox leaders who didn’t endorse and were close allies of Adams — Rabbi Chaim Dovid Zwiebel, executive vice president of Agudath Israel of America, and Josh Mehlman, head of the Flatbush Jewish Community Coalition.
Outside, a group of rabbis protested Mamdani’s swearing-in by displaying Israeli flags. It was led by Rabbi Avi Weiss, founding rabbi of the Hebrew Institute of Riverdale, and Rabbi Chaim Steinmetz of Congregation Kehilath Jeshurun on the Upper East Side. Both rabbis publicly opposed Mamdani during the election. In an interview with Talkline Network, a Jewish online radio, Steinmetz said it was a “demonstration of Jewish pride.” However, he said, New York Jews shouldn’t be fixated on Mamdani, they should assess his actions day by day.
The post Mayor Zohran Mamdani reassures Jewish New Yorkers at inauguration: ‘I will protect you’ appeared first on The Forward.
