Uncategorized
An Israel analyst’s best- and worst-case scenarios for the new right-wing government
(JTA) — The recent Israeli elections, the fifth in less than four years, returned Benjamin Netanyahu to the driver’s seat for the third time.
The twice and future prime minister appears able to cobble together a coalition that has been called the most right-wing in Israeli history. It will include three far-right and two haredi Orthodox parties, and his partners include the far-right Religious Zionism party and its leader Bezalel Smotrich, who has sucessfully pushed for a heavier hand in controlling Israeli policies in the West Bank; Itamar Ben-Gvir, head of the extremist Otzma Yehudit party, who is due to head a new National Security Ministry that will be given authority over Border Police in the West Bank; and far-right Knesset member Avi Maoz, whose Noam party campaigned on a homophobic and anti-pluralistic platform.
These developments have cheered the American Jewish right, which has long called for Israel to consolidate its power in — if not outright annex — the disputed territories of the West Bank that are home to 480,000 Israeli settlers and 2.7 million Palestinians, of whom 220,000 live in East Jerusalem.
For Jews on the center and left, however, the results have prompted anxiety. If the two-state solution has long looked out of reach, many were at least hoping Israel would stay on a centrist path and maintain the status quo until Israelis and Palestinians seem ready for their long-delayed divorce. American Jewish leaders are worried — privately and in public — that Jewish support for Israel will erode further than it has if Jews become convinced Israel doesn’t share their democratic and pluralistic values.
I spoke this past week about these issues and more with Michael Koplow, the chief policy officer of the Israel Policy Forum and a senior research fellow of the Kogod Research Center at the Shalom Hartman Institute of North America. The IPF supports a viable two-state solution, and Koplow acknowledges that he agrees with “almost nothing that I’m going to see from this Israeli government.” But he remains one of the most articulate analysts I know of the high stakes on all sides.
Our conversation was presented as a Zoom event sponsored by Congregation Beth Sholom, my own synagogue in Teaneck, New Jersey. The transcript below has been edited for length and clarity
Jewish Telegraphic Agency: What are the far right’s big asks, and what might we expect to see going forward?
Michael Koplow: There are a few issues that are really coming to the fore. The first is judicial reform. There’s a longstanding complaint among the Israeli right that the Israeli Supreme Court is perceived to be left-leaning — the mirror image of what we have here in the United States. Secondly, the Supreme Court is perceived by many Israelis to be an undemocratic institution, because it is an appointed body. In Israel, you have a selection committee for the Supreme Court that is actually composed mostly of sitting Supreme Court justices and members of the Israeli Bar Association. A common complaint is that the Knesset is a democratic body selected by the people and it’s hampered by this undemocratic body that gets to dictate to the Knesset what is legal and what is not.
And so for a long time on the Israeli right there has been a call to have a bill passed that would allow the Knesset to override Supreme Court decisions. At the moment, there’s no recourse. The ultra-Orthodox parties in Israel have long sought exemptions for haredi Israelis to serve in the IDF and the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that ultra-Orthodox members of Israeli society can’t get a blanket exemption. A Supreme Court override bill would allow the Knesset to exempt the ultra-Orthodox from serving in the IDF. For the more right-wing nationalist parties, particularly Religious Zionism, the Israeli Supreme Court has ruled on multiple occasions that settlements cannot be established on private Palestinian land in the West Bank. Their main interest in a Supreme Court override is so that they can pass laws that will effectively allow settlements anywhere in [the West Bank’s Israeli-controlled] Area C, whether it’s state land or private Palestinian land.
Is Netanyahu interested for these same reasons?
Netanyahu is to a lesser extent interested in these things, but right now he’s on trial for three different counts, all for fraud and breach of trust, which is the crime that Israeli politicians get charged with in matters of corruption. He’s also in trouble for bribery. One of the things that he wants to do is to pass something called the “French law,” which would bar sitting Israeli prime ministers from being investigated and indicted. And in order to do that, he almost certainly will have to get around the Supreme Court.
The second thing that I think we can expect to see from this prospective coalition has to do with the West Bank. In late 2019 and early 2020, there was a lot of talk in the Israeli political sphere about either applying sovereignty to the West Bank or annexing the West Bank. This happened also in conjunction with the release of the Trump plan in January 2020, which envisioned upfront 30% of the West Bank being annexed to Israel.
This all got shelved in the summer of 2020, with the Abraham Accords, when the Emirati ambassador to the United States wrote an op-ed where he said to Israelis, “You can have normalization with the UAE or you can have annexation, but you can’t have both.” Israelis overwhelmingly wanted normalization versus West Bank annexation. Between 10% and 15% of Israeli Jews want annexation, so this annexation plan was dropped. In the new coalition, annexation is back, but it’s back in a different way. Bezalel Smotrich is a particularly smart and savvy politician, and understands that if you talk about annexation or application of sovereignty on day one, he’d likely run into some of the same problems — from the United States and potentially from other countries in the region. And so the way they’re going about it now is by instituting a piecemeal plan that will add up to what is effectively annexation.
How would that work?
For starters, there is a plan to legalize illegal Israeli settlements, and when I say illegal, I mean illegal under Israeli law. There are 127 settlements in the West Bank that are legal under Israeli law, because they had been built on what is called state land inside of the West Bank, and because they’ve gone through the planning and permitting process. In addition, there are about 205 illegal Israeli outposts and illegal Israeli farms, containing somewhere between 25,000 and 30,000 Israelis. And what makes them illegal under Israeli law is that they were all built without any type of Israeli government approval. In many of these cases, they’re also built on private Palestinian land.
The first part of this plan is to legalize retroactively these illegal outposts. The coalition agreement that has already been signed between Likud and Religious Zionism, Smotrich’s party, calls for, within 60 days of the formation of the government, the state paying for water and electricity to these illegal outposts. I should note there already is water and electricity to these illegal outposts, but it’s paid for by the regional settlement councils. This would have water and electricity paid for by the Israeli government, and then within a year to retroactively legalize all of them. That’s step number one.
Step number two has to do with the legal settlements inside the West Bank. There is a body called the Civil Administration, which is the body that is in charge of all construction for both Israelis and Palestinians in Area C, the 60% of the West Bank that is controlled entirely by Israel. As part of the agreement between Likud and Religious Zionism, Smotrich is going to be finance minister, but also appointed as a junior minister in the Defense Ministry, and he will control the Civil Administration and will be in charge of all settlement construction in the West Bank. He will also have the power to decide whether Palestinians can build in Area C and whether Palestinian structures in Area C that were built without a permit can be demolished. And so this will almost certainly be increasing at a very rapid rate. The Supreme Planning Committee that plans West Bank settlement construction normally would meet about four times a year, and under the [current] Bennett/Lapid government it only met twice, but Smotrich said in the past that he would like to convene it every single month. So the pace of settlement construction is almost certainly going to grow at a pretty rapid pace.
What will Itamar Ben-Gvir, an acolyte of Meir Kahane, the American rabbi barred from Israel’s parliament in the 1980s because of his racism, gain in the government?
Itamar Ben-Gvir is the head of Otzma Yehudit, the Jewish supremacist party that now has six seats in the Knesset. As part of his negotiations with Netanyahu, he is going to be appointed to a new position known as the “national security minister,” which is currently called the public security minister, but they’ve increased its powers and renamed it. They’ve also given this new ministry control over the West Bank border police, who operate in the West Bank. And they’re also giving this minister power over the police that normally belongs to the police commissioner. And so Ben-Gvir, who I should note has seven criminal convictions on his record, including one for support of a terrorist organization and incitement to racism, is going to be the minister who’s in charge of the police — not only inside of Israel, but he’ll be in charge of the police who operate in the West Bank and who operate on the Temple Mount.
Michael Koplow is the chief policy officer of the Israel Policy Forum and a senior research fellow of the Kogod Research Center at the Shalom Hartman Institute of North America. (Courtesy IPF)
And this is important because Ben-Gvir is one of the figures in Israel who has talked a lot about changing the status quo on the Temple Mount, probably the most sensitive spot in the entire world, and certainly the most sensitive spot anywhere between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. Which is why Israeli governments, including very right-wing governments, have not changed the status quo [allowing Jews to enter the Muslim-administered mount, but pray there], certainly not formally. He’s also talked about increasing his own visits to the Temple Mount.
And he’s also talked about changing the rules of engagement for Israeli police, whereby they would be allowed to shoot anybody on sight, for instance, who’s holding a stone or holding a Molotov cocktail. Right now the current rules of engagement are that people like that can only be shot if they present an imminent and serious threat to a soldier or police. Changing that is certainly going to have an effect on relations between Israelis and Palestinians and likely lead to the types of clashes we’ve seen in Jerusalem over the past few years.
This is all very good news for folks who want to solidify Israeli control in the West Bank. It’s not such good news for people who support more autonomy for the Palestinians and certainly support the two-state solution — and I think I can include the Israel Policy Forum in the latter camp. I want to hear your thoughts on what you’ve called the best-case scenarios and the worst-case scenarios, and on where Netanyahu fits in.
When I say best-case scenario, I mean in terms of preserving the status quo, because a best-case scenario where you’d actually have an agreement between Israelis and Palestinians is nowhere. It’s not in any conceivable future.
I think the best-case scenario would be that Netanyahu understands Israel’s place in the international system and he understands how issues inside the West Bank impact Israel’s foreign relations. This is somebody who has served as Israeli prime minister longer than anybody else. He was prime minister when the Abraham Accords came into being, and that accomplishment is rightfully his. Netanyahu understands these factors and has a long history of being very cautious as prime minister. He’s not a prime minister that uses force. He’s not a prime minister under whom Israel has undertaken any major military operations outside of Gaza. I think that it’s not unreasonable to think that his history of relative caution isn’t just going to go away. And that means doing things to make sure that the fundamental situation in the West Bank doesn’t get overturned.
Netanyahu is operating in a political context in which his voters and voters for the other parties in his coalition do expect some real radical changes. Interestingly, however, part of this agreement with Religious Zionism is that everything has to be approved by [Netanyahu], and so there will be a mechanism for Netanyahu to slow some things down. I think that there is a situation in which he lets things proceed at an increased pace, but doesn’t do anything to really fundamentally alter the status of the West Bank.
I also think that voters voted for Religious Zionism and Otzma Yehudit not because they’re looking for big, massive changes in the West Bank or an explosion in settlement construction, but because they were voting on law and order issues. Many Israelis are still very shell-shocked, literally and figuratively, by the events of May 2021, particularly the riots that broke out in mixed Israeli cities. And despite the fact that Itamar Ben-Gvir was blamed by the police commissioner at the time for instigating some of the violence in mixed cities, he ran a very effective campaign where he said, “Vote for me and effectively I will restore order.”
That leads to the reasonable best-case scenario of plenty of things happening that will cause friction with the United States and plenty of things that will cause friction with the Palestinians, but nothing that can necessarily be undone by a different government down the road.
And the worst-case scenario, from your perspective?
The worst-case scenario is all of these things that Smotrich, in particular, wants to carry out leads to the collapse of the Palestinian Authority. Based on my own experience in the West Bank in recent months, the Palestinian Authority has fundamentally lost control of much of the northern West Bank. In many places they have chosen not to engage in many ways. They effectively operate in and around Ramallah, and have a token presence in other spots, but don’t really have the power to enforce law and order. They’re under enormous political strain.
As a very quick refresher, the West Bank is divided into three areas, A, B and C. In theory, Area A is supposed to be entirely under the PA control and where you have between 1.3 and 1.5 million Palestinians. If the Palestinian Authority collapses, that means that Israel must go in and literally be the day to day governor and mayor of Area A and all its cities, providing services to 1.3 million Palestinians. It means acting as traffic cops, dealing with all sorts of housing and construction and literally everything that municipal governments do that Israel has not done in Area A in almost 30 years.
Does Israel even have that capability?
The standard is that 55% of all active-duty IDF soldiers are currently stationed in the West Bank. If the Palestinian Authority collapses it’s not hyperbole to say that every single active-duty IDF soldier will have to be stationed in the West Bank just to run things, just to maintain basic law and order. That means not having IDF soldiers on the border with Egypt, on the borders with Syria and Lebanon. It will effectively have turned into nothing but a full-time occupation force. And that’s Option A.
Option B is that Israel elects not to do that. And then Hamas or Islamic Jihad steps into the vacuum, and they become the new government in the West Bank. And at that point, everything that you have in Gaza, you have in the West Bank, except for the fact that the West Bank is a much larger territory. It cannot be sealed off completely. This is literally the nightmare scenario not only for Israeli security officials, but for Israeli civilians. And that’s even before we talk about the impact that will have on terrorism and violence inside of Israeli cities inside the green line, let alone what happens in the West Bank.
The United States and the European Union, and the U.N., presumably, won’t stand idly by through a lot of these changes. What leverage do they have and can they use to maintain the status quo?
The U.S. and E.U. are going to have some pretty clear, very well-defined red lines. I think it’s reasonable to expect that the Biden administration and many members of Congress will put the formal declaration of annexation as a red line. The same goes for European countries. But certainly the Biden administration doesn’t want to be in a position where they are getting into constant fights with the Israeli government. The administration rightly views Israel as an ally and an important partner and wants to maintain military and security and intelligence cooperation with Israel in the region. All those things benefit U.S. foreign policy. This is not an administration and certainly there isn’t support in Congress for things like conditioning security assistance to Israel or placing new usage restrictions on the type of weapons that we sell to Israel. And so there isn’t a huge amount of leverage in that department.
But I do think we’re going to see more diplomatic and political-type measures. People remember the controversy that ensued in December 2016 at the United Nations when the Obama administration abstained from a Security Council resolution on Israeli settlements. I think that if some of these measures go ahead, on the Israeli side, there’s a good chance that we will see the United States once again abstain from some measures in the Security Council. At the moment, the Israeli government has been working very hard to get the United States to help with [thwarting] investigations into Israeli activity in the West Bank in the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice. I think that those sorts of things become a lot harder if Israel has fundamentally changed the status of the situation in the West Bank.
There are probably all sorts of trade relationships with the European Union that may be at risk. One big factor here is the other states in the region, the Abraham Accords states. There’s reason to think that they may act as a check on the Israeli government, given the popularity of normalization among Israelis, and given the fact that the UAE was the party that really stepped in and prevented annexation from taking place in the summer of 2020. In a country like Saudi Arabia, where you have a population of between 25 and 30 million, or Iraq or Kuwait, [the far right’s agenda] makes normalizing relations with those countries very, very difficult, if not impossible, and it’s possible that Netanyahu will use that also as a way to try and appeal to some of his coalition partners.
Another outside partner is Diaspora Jewry. A vocal minority of American Jewry supports the right-wing government, but a majority would support a two-state solution. They connect to Israel with what they see as a shared sense of democracy and liberal values. Does Netanyahu and his coalition partners think at all about them and their concerns? Do those Diaspora Jews have any leverage at all in terms of moderating any of these trends?
The short answer is not really. The parties in a prospective coalition are not ones that historically have cared very much about the relationship with the Diaspora. Haredi parties are not concerned about the erosion of liberal values inside of Israel or the situation in the West Bank for the most part. And parties like Religious Zionism and Otzma Yehudit really don’t care what American Jewry thinks about much of anything. We’ve already seen demands in some of these coalition agreements to amend the Law of Return, where right now, anybody who has one Jewish grandparent is eligible to be an Israeli citizen. These parties have been requesting that it be amended so that you are only eligible if you are halachically Jewish, meaning you have a Jewish mother [or have converted formally].
North American Jewry is a real asset to the State of Israel given its role traditionally in supporting the state economically and politically. And yet over the past decade and a half there have been repeated comments [among Israeli politicians, including Netanyahu’s ambassador to the United States, Ron Dermer] that it’s more important to be making inroads with evangelical Christians than with North American Jews, given the politics of evangelical Christians and given their size.
Many American Jews, particularly from the Reform and Conservative denominations, have already been angry that Israel doesn’t fully recognize the authenticity of non-Orthodox Judaism, and that an agreement to create a permanent egalitarian prayer space at the Western Wall has been repeatedly shelved under pressure from Israel’s religious right.
We are in for a tough time in terms of Diaspora-Israel relations. You know, it’s not just about the issues that have been on the table over the past few years that have been disappointing to Diaspora Jewry, whether it be the Western Wall arrangement, whether it be recognition of Conservative and Reform Judaism inside of Israel, whether it be things like the Law of Return, which now seems to be under threat. In general, this question of values, which has been a big deal, is going to be even more front and center. Many American Jews have looked at Israel and thought of it as a place that shares liberal values with the United States. To some extent, that’s been historically accurate. But that picture, whether it’s accurate or not, is going to be under incredible strain.
What about within Israel? Are there any countervailing powers that might moderate the far right — professional military leadership, major business leaders, other opinion-makers outside the political process?
Thankfully, there is no history of IDF leadership interfering in the political decisions of elected civilian leaders in Israel. I hope that will continue. The way the security establishment has generally dealt with these sorts of things is by presenting a united front when they speak to the political leadership and give their opinions and advice and warnings about what might happen. They tend to be very savvy at leaking those opinions to the media. I’m certain that that sort of thing will continue. We already saw some discord over the past week between IDF leadership and some of the members of the prospective new coalition over disciplinary measures that were taken against soldiers who were serving in Hebron, one of whom punched a [Palestinian] protester, another who verbally assaulted a protester. And that can be a moderating influence, but I actually do not expect to see the military leadership stepping in any way in preventing something that the government may want to do.
The biggest check will be Israelis themselves. There was something else interesting that happened [last] week: Avi Maoz, who was the single member of Knesset from Noam, which is one of these three very, very radical right-wing parties, was appointed as a deputy minister in the prime minister’s office, and he was given control over effectively everything in education that is not part of the core curriculum and Israeli schools — like culture and Jewish identity issues. And that led to a revolt from Israeli mayors. You’ve had over 100 mayors of over 100 municipalities signing a letter saying that they are not going to be bound by Maoz’s dictates on curriculum. And this includes right-wing cities. I think that the most effective check is going to be government overreach, which leads to a backlash like this among Israeli citizens and among Israeli politicians who are not members of Knesset.
We’ve covered a lot of ground. Is there something we haven’t touched upon?
It’s really important that people don’t look at what’s taking place in Israel, throw up their hands and say, “You know, there’s nothing we can do to change this and Israelis are increasingly uninterested in what we think and so we’re going to disengage.” To my mind, the relationship that American Jews have to Israel is too important to just throw up our hands and say it doesn’t matter.
If we take American Jewish identity seriously, and we take the American Jewish project seriously, we have to think about two things. First, how we build an American Jewish identity that’s uniquely American. But second, how we preserve some sort of relationship with Israel, even when we see things coming from Israel that don’t speak to our Jewish values. We’re living in a time where we have an independent Jewish state with Jewish sovereignty in the Jewish homeland. This is a historical anomaly. If we turn our backs on that, despite all of the difficulties, it really would be a tragedy and catastrophic for American Jewish identity.
If you don’t like what you see going on in Israel, try to figure out what your relationship with Israel will look like and how to have a productive one. And that doesn’t have to mean supporting everything the Israeli government does. I consider myself you know, somebody who is a strong Zionist, strongly pro-Israel. It’s a place that I love. I agree with almost nothing that I’m going to see from this Israeli government. But I’m still able to have a strong, meaningful relationship with the State of Israel, and I hope that people are able to do the same, irrespective of the day-to-day of Israeli politics.
—
The post An Israel analyst’s best- and worst-case scenarios for the new right-wing government 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.
