RSS
Ezra Klein’s NY Times Op-ed Distorts the Truth About the American Jewish Community
A taxi passes by in front of The New York Times head office, Feb. 7, 2013. Photo: Reuters / Carlo Allegri
Ezra Klein’s July 20th New York Times column paints Zohran Mamdani’s primary victory in Queens as evidence of a community in disarray — an evocative but fundamentally misleading diagnosis. He frames Mamdani, a Democratic Socialist and supporter of the phrase “globalize the intifada,” as a kind of Rorschach test for American Jews. Where some see antisemitism, others see progressive politics. Klein reads this divergence as proof that American Jewish life has collapsed into incoherence, unable even to agree on the meaning of antisemitism.
But the truth is not merely more complex — it’s more urgent. Mamdani’s rise isn’t just a matter of political disagreement or ideological diversity. It is a direct challenge to the foundational commitments of modern American Jewry.
In the heart of New York City — a place with the largest Jewish population outside Israel — Democratic voters elevated a candidate who has repeatedly refused to condemn calls for violence against Jews and who has embraced movements that explicitly reject Israel’s right to exist.
For American Jews, this isn’t a debate over tactics or nuance. It’s an existential breach. And Klein, in his determination to frame the moment as a story of pluralism and Jewish self-reinvention, distorts the stakes. He leans almost exclusively on institutional liberal voices who reflect his own worldview, while ignoring the clear and present threat Mamdani’s ideology poses — not only to Israel, but to Jews here in America. Worse, he misrepresents the facts on the ground and omits the voices of those most alarmed by the normalization of this rhetoric.
Mamdani is not just “controversial.” He has repeatedly aligned himself with anti-Zionist campaigns that veer into outright antisemitism. He has refused to distance himself from the slogan “globalize the intifada,” a call whose historical and contemporary connotations include suicide bombings, mass shootings, and civilian targeting. His supporters have included open advocates of political violence.
Yet in Klein’s telling, Mamdani becomes a symbol of generational change, while his most radical statements are hand-waved away or ignored altogether. This is not responsible analysis. It is narrative laundering.
In fact, Klein’s entire account reads like an effort to gaslight concerned Jews into thinking their fears are overblown or reactionary. But those fears are grounded in reality — and in data.
According to the 2024 American Jewish Committee (AJC) Survey of American Jewish Opinion — based on interviews conducted March 12 to April 6, 2024 — 85% of American Jews said US support for Israel in the aftermath of the October 7 attacks was important, including 60% who said it was “very important.”
Among Jews aged 50 and older, 68% said Israel’s response to Hamas was acceptable, compared to just over half of younger adults. Additionally, fewer than one in four American Jews, even among younger cohorts, support the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement.
Crucially, a super majority — approximately 81% overall — say that caring about Israel is either very or somewhat important to what being Jewish means to them.
Moreover, the American Jewish Committee found that while Jews age 30 and over are more likely to say caring about Israel is “very important” to what being Jewish means to them compared to younger Jews between the ages of 18-29 (53% vs. 40%), this gap has narrowed significantly since October 7th. In 2023, 29% of young American Jews said caring about Israel was “very important” — with that figure climbing to 40% in 2024.
And the overwhelming connection to Israel in polls even takes into account differences with certain Israeli government policies. For example, 53% of Jewish Americans lack confidence in Netanyahu’s leadership, while 45% have confidence — yet they still say they are extremely invested in what is happening in Israel. This shows that support for Israel transcends disagreements about Israeli politics.
These numbers do not describe a community in collapse; rather, they depict one that — while diverse — retains a strong core of moral and political connection and interest in Israel.
Klein ignores this. He constructs his essay around rabbis and nonprofit professionals who share his ideological priors, as if theirs are the only Jewish perspectives that matter. Absent are Orthodox Jews, Sephardic Jews, Russian-speaking immigrants, Zionist progressives, or the large number of politically centrist Jews in New York who saw Mamdani’s victory as a five-alarm fire.
These omissions are not accidental — they are part of the essay’s architecture. By quoting only those who interpret Mamdani charitably, Klein builds a case that marginalizes Jewish alarm as overreaction and redefines antisemitism on his own narrow terms.
This is dangerous. We cannot afford to treat direct threats to Jewish safety and sovereignty as occasions for philosophical musing. Nor can we allow elite commentators to dictate the boundaries of legitimate Jewish concern — especially when those commentators minimize or rationalize hate. Klein’s selective sourcing is not just a stylistic failure; it is an surrender of moral responsibility.
I’ve argued that Mamdani’s refusal to disavow “intifada” chants, and the embrace he’s received from some Jewish leaders, reveal how moral clarity around antisemitism is being eroded in progressive spaces.
When a candidate declines to reject slogans historically tied to violence against Jews — and still wins support from parts of the Jewish institutional world — something foundational is breaking down. That breakdown is not about Jewish pluralism. It’s about the collapse of boundaries between debate and denial, between political disagreement and existential threat.
That conflation is now being amplified by figures like Klein, who treat any Jewish criticism of Mamdani as an obstacle to inclusivity rather than a valid and pressing concern. This is not a moment for neutral tones. The normalization of anti-Zionist extremism in the political mainstream is not a side issue. It’s a litmus test for whether we take Jewish security and dignity seriously.
In short, Klein’s framing doesn’t just misread the moment. It helps enable the very forces that threaten Jewish life in America. By casting disagreement over Mamdani as proof of “pluralism,” Klein erases the difference between healthy internal debate and the embrace of actors who reject the legitimacy of the Jewish State and traffic in language that too often ends in violence.
There is nothing pluralistic about a political space where Jews must justify their existence, where support for Israel is treated as shameful, and where candidates can win while embracing slogans tied to terrorism.
Yes, younger Jews are navigating identity in new ways. They are morally serious, politically engaged, and often skeptical of inherited institutions. But skepticism is not the same as antagonism, and what Klein fails to appreciate is that many of these same Jews still affirm Jewish peoplehood, care deeply about Israel, and want to see their values reflected in the communal conversation. What they do not want is to be told that embracing figures like Mamdani is a necessary part of that growth.
There is a path forward. It involves making space for generational shifts and political critique without capitulating to those who traffic in eliminationist rhetoric. It means drawing distinctions between policy debate and existential denial. And it requires that thought leaders and commentators confront uncomfortable facts — even when they conflict with ideological narratives.
Mamdani’s politics are not merely provocative. They are incompatible with Jewish safety and dignity. And any effort to obscure that — to soften it with euphemism or dress it up in pluralist language — is not analysis. It’s abdication.
Klein mourns the passing of an old institutional order. But he fails to see the real threat facing American Jews today: a political and intellectual elite that treats existential threats as abstractions, and smears moral clarity as parochialism.
Samuel J. Abrams is a professor of politics at Sarah Lawrence College and a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
The post Ezra Klein’s NY Times Op-ed Distorts the Truth About the American Jewish Community first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Trump Administration Says George Washington University Ignored Campus Antisemitism
US President Donald Trump holds a press briefing on Aug. 11, 2025. Photo: Andrew Thomas via Reuters Connect
The Civil Rights Division of the US Department of Justice (DOJ) said on Tuesday that it has amassed sufficient evidence to prove that George Washington University violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, alleging that the institution responded to campus antisemitism “by acting deliberately indifferent” to the harm it posed to Jewish students and faculty.
“The division finds that GWU took no meaningful action and was instead deliberately indifferent to the complaints it received, the misconduct that occurred, and the harms that were suffered by its Jewish and Israeli students and faculty,” the agency said while sharing a document containing its findings. “The Justice Department will seek immediate remediation with GWU for its civil rights violations.”
George Washington University, speaking through spokesperson Shannon McClendon, responded to the Justice Department in a statement which summarized the institution’s actions and policies while stopping short of offering a contentious refutation of the government’s case.
“We have taken appropriate action under university policy and the law to hold individuals or organizations accountable, including during the encampment, and we do not tolerate behavior that threatens our community or undermines meaningful dialogue,” McClendon said. “We have worked diligently with members of GW’s Jewish community, as well as Jewish community organizations, city, and federal authorities to protect the GW community from antisemitism and we remain committed to working with them to ensure every student has the right to equal educational opportunities without fear of harassment and abuse.”
As previously reported, George Washington University in Washington, DC has been a hub of extreme anti-Zionist activity that school officials have struggled to quell. A major source of such conduct has been the campus group Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), which, among other things, has threatened a Jewish professor and intimidated Jews on campus.
Recently, a student used her commencement speech to lodge accusations of apartheid and genocide against Israel, a notion trafficked by neo-Nazi groups and jihadist terror organizations.
The student, Cecilia Culver, accused Israel of targeting Palestinians “simply for [their] remaining in the country of their ancestors” and said that GW students are passive contributors to the “imperialist system.” An economics and statistics major, Culver deceived administrators who selected her to address the Columbian College of the Arts and Sciences ceremony, the university said in a statement, claiming she strayed from her prepared remarks.
GW faculty have also allegedly contributed to the promotion of antisemitism on campus. In 2023, former psychology professor Lara Sheehi was accused of verbally abusing and discriminating against her Jewish graduate students.
As recounted in a 2023 civil rights complaint filed by StandWithUs, Sheehi was accused of expressing contempt for Jews when, on the first day of term in August 2022, she asked every student to share information about their backgrounds and cultures. Replying to a student who revealed that she was Israeli, Sheehi allegedly said, “It’s not your fault you were born in Israel.” Jewish students said they made several attempts to persuade the university to correct Sheehi’s behavior or arrange an alternative option for fulfilling the requirements of her course. Each time, StandWithUs alleged, administrators said nothing could be done.
Later, the complaint added, Sheehi spread rumors that her Jewish students were “combative” racists and filed misconduct charges against them. One student told The Algemeiner at the time that she never learned what university policies Sheehi accused her and her classmates of violating.
In May, a civil lawsuit recounted dozens of antisemitic incidents which occurred at the university following the Hamas-led Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel. It alleged that school officials failed to respond to adequately to them because of anti-Jewish, as well as anti-Zionist, bias. Among the incidents detailed, the campus Hillel Center was vandalized; someone threw a rock through the window of a truck owned by a Jewish advocacy group; and a Jewish student was told to “kill yourself” and “watch your back” in a hate message which also called her a “filthy k—ke.”
That and more transpired, court documents charge.
“Protesters at GWU raised repulsive, antisemitic signs and shouted slogans like ‘final solution,’ ‘the irony of being what you once hatred,’ a message that equated the swastika to the Star of David; and ‘Globalize the Intifada,’ an express call for violence against Jews,” the complaint adds. “Protesters vandalized university property in what amounted to rioting and blocked Jewish students from traversing campus freely, attending class, and otherwise engaging in educational opportunities.”
The plaintiffs, Sabrina Soffer and Ari Shapiro, said in court documents that the university’s anemic response to campus antisemitism constituted a violation of Title VI. They are seeking damages and injunctive relief.
On Tuesday, assistant attorney general Harmeet Dhillon of the Justice Department’s civil rights division said the Trump administration will continue identifying universities which allegedly miscarried justice, saying, “Every student has the right to educational opportunities without fear of harassment or abuse. No one is above the law, and universities that promulgate antisemitic discrimination will face legal consequences.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
RSS
Iran, South Africa Deepen Military, Strategic Partnership to Counter ‘Global Arrogance’
Iranian Maj. Gen. Amir Hatami and South African Gen. Rudzani Maphwanya meet in Tehran on Aug. 12, 2025, to discuss strengthening military cooperation and strategic ties. Photo: Screenshot
Iran and South Africa held high-level military talks this week as both nations seek to deepen cooperation and strengthen their partnership against what they called “global arrogance and aggressive colonial approaches.”
On Tuesday, Iranian Maj. Gen. Amir Hatami, chief of staff of Iran’s army, met with Gen. Rudzani Maphwanya, the visiting chief of the South African National Defense Force, in Tehran.
During a joint press conference, Hatami said that both countries share a strong commitment to opposing “colonialism and global arrogance,” with South Africa playing a significant role in Iran’s foreign policy priorities.
“The Islamic Republic and South Africa have always supported each other and oppressed nations,” the Iranian commander said, according to Iran’s state-run media, emphasizing that their shared mission must continue “until restoration of an international order based on justice and human dignity.”
Hatami also emphasized the strong political alignment between Tehran and Pretoria, saying it has granted South Africa “a special position” in Iran’s broader strategy toward Africa.
He expressed hope that this partnership, particularly their shared military capabilities, would soon lead to tangible joint projects.
For his part, Maphwanya called for deeper ties between the two nations, especially in defense cooperation, affirming that “the Republic of South Africa and the Islamic Republic of Iran have common goals.”
“We always stand alongside the oppressed and defenseless people of the world,” the South African general said.
The meeting came after the Middle East Africa Research Institute (MEARI) released a recent report detailing how South Africa’s deepening ties with Tehran have led the country to compromise its democratic foundations and constitutional principles by aligning itself with a regime internationally condemned for terrorism, repression, and human rights abuses.
For example, the report noted that while Iran supports South Africa’s coalition government partly because of their shared revolutionary and liberation ideologies, Pretoria has often defended Tehran at the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) by voting against sanctions or abstaining.
In doing so, the study claimed that the South African government has both undermined its democratic values and bolstered Iran’s regional ambitions by defending its nuclear program and downplaying its human rights abuses.
During the press conference in Tehran, Hatami praised South Africa’s “firm stance” in condemning what he called “the joint atrocities committed by the Israeli regime and the United States against Palestinians,” describing it as both “courageous and commendable.”
He also commended Pretoria’s decision to “challenge the Zionist regime at the International Court of Justice [ICJ] over its ongoing genocide in the Gaza Strip,” calling the move one that “would go down in history.”
Since December 2023, South Africa has been pursuing its case at the ICJ, the UN’s top court, accusing Israel of committing “state-led genocide” in its defensive war against the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas in Gaza.
Israeli leaders have lambasted the case as an “obscene exploitation” of the Genocide Convention, noting that the Jewish state is targeting terrorists who use civilians as human shields in its military campaign.
MEARI’s report questioned whether South Africa’s case against Israel was genuinely rooted in constitutional principles — or driven by outside political pressure.
According to the study, South Africa’s open hostility toward Israel and its biased approach in filing the case — failing to acknowledge Hamas’s role in launching the war with its Oct. 7, 2023, invasion of and massacre across southern Israel — undermines the government’s credibility.
The study also explained that, shortly after filing the ICJ case, South Africa’s ruling African National Congress (ANC), struggling with financial difficulties, unexpectedly paid off a multi-million-rand debt, fueling speculation about possible covert support from Iran.
During Tuesday’s press conference, Hatami also emphasized that Gaza’s population requires immediate and concrete support from governments and international organizations, rather than mere symbolic gestures.
“Unfortunately, due to the influence of the United States and some Western powers, such support is more verbal than practical. As a result, the crimes of this regime continue with intensity,” he said.
Since the start of the war in Gaza, the South African government has been one of the fiercest critics of Israel’s military campaign, which seeks to free the hostages kidnapped by Hamas on Oct. 7, 2023, and dismantle the terrorist group’s military and administrative control in the enclave.
Beyond its open hostility toward Israel, South Africa has actively supported Iran’s terrorist proxy by hosting two Hamas officials at a state-backed conference expressing solidarity with the Palestinians in December 2023.
Iranian leaders routinely declare their intention to destroy the state of Israel.
RSS
Zohran Mamdani Overwhelmingly Unpopular With New York City Jews, New Poll Finds
Zohran Mamdani. Photo: Ron Adar / SOPA Images via Reuters Connect
A new Siena College poll shows Democratic mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani facing an overwhelming backlash from Jewish voters in New York City, with a staggering 75 percent holding an unfavorable opinion of the Queens Democrat and just 15 percent viewing him favorably.
The numbers mark Mamdani as one of the least popular figures among Jewish New Yorkers, undermining narratives that the progressive lawmaker enjoys substantial support from the Jewish community. His unfavorable rating among Jewish voters is more than 38 points higher than his standing with the general electorate, where 37 percent view him negatively compared to 28 percent favorably. (The remainder responded they either don’t know or have no opinion.)
The steep disapproval comes as Mamdani continues to face criticism for adopting explicitly anti-Israel rhetoric during his campaign. He has repeatedly accused Israel of “apartheid,” called for a US arms embargo on the country, and championed pro-Palestinian causes. He has also accused Israel of committing a so-called “genocide” in Gaza and refused to affirm its right to exist as a Jewish state.
Many local Jewish leaders have condemned these positions as dangerously one-sided amid rising global antisemitism. Critics within the Jewish community have said Mamdani’s rhetoric ignores Israel’s right to defend itself and alienates Jewish New Yorkers who see anti-Israel animus leading to increased antisemitism in the US.
Only 20 percent of Jews stated in the new poll that they plan on voting for Mamdani, undercutting previous polling which indicated the firebrand progressive winning a plurality of New York City Jewish support. According to the poll, 44 percent and 23 percent of Jews in the city plan on voting for former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and conservative activist Curtis Sliwa, respectively. Only 4 percent plan on voting for incumbent Mayor Eric Adams.
Mamdani, the 33‑year‑old state assemblymember and self-proclaimed democratic socialist, defeated Cuomo and other candidates in a lopsided first‑round win in the city’s Democratic primary for mayor, notching approximately 43.5 percent of first‑choice votes compared to Cuomo’s 36.4 percent.
A little-known politician before this year’s primary campaign, Mamdani is an outspoken supporter of the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement, which seeks to isolate Israel from the international community as a step toward its eventual elimination. Mamdani also defended the phrase “globalize the intifada”— which references previous periods of sustained Palestinian terrorism against Jews and Israels and has been widely interpreted as a call to expand political violence — by invoking the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising during World War II. In response, the US Holocaust Memorial Museum repudiated the mayoral candidate, calling his comments “outrageous and especially offensive to [Holocaust] survivors.”