Uncategorized
The JTA conversation: Pogrom? Terrorism? What do we call what happened in Huwara?
(JTA) — On Sunday, after a Palestinian gunman shot and killed two Israeli brothers in the West Bank, Jewish settlers rioted in the nearby Palestinian town of Huwara, burning cars and buildings. A Palestinian was killed and dozens were injured.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu condemned the Jewish rioters for “taking the law in their own hands,” but many observers — including the top Israeli general in the West Bank and Abraham Foxman, director emeritus of the the Anti-Defamation League — used stronger language, calling the attacks a “pogrom.”
The use of the word, which most famously refers to a wave of anti-Jewish violence in the Russian empire beginning in the late 19th century, in turn became the subject of debate. Does using “pogrom” co-opt Jewish history unfairly and inaccurately by suggesting Jews are no better than their historical persecutors? Does avoiding the term mean Israel and its supporters are not taking sufficient responsibility for the actions of its Jewish citizens?
The debate is not just about language, but about controlling the narrative. Political speech can minimize or exaggerate events, put them in their proper context or distort them in ways that, per George Orwell, can “corrupt thought.”
We asked historians, linguists and activists to consider the word pogrom, and asked them what politicians, journalists and everyday people should call what happened at Huwara. Their responses are below.
Sidestepping the real issue
Dr. Jeffrey Shandler
Distinguished Professor, Department of Jewish Studies, Rutgers University
The meanings of the word “pogrom” in different languages are key here. In Russian, it means a massacre or raid, as it does in Yiddish; in neither language is it understood as specifically about violence against Jews. The Oxford English Dictionary concurs that pogrom means an “organized massacre… of any body or class,” but notes that, in the English-language press, it was first used mostly to refer to anti-Jewish attacks in Russia, citing examples from 1905-1906.
Therefore, though the association of pogrom with violence targeting Jews is widely familiar, its meaning is broader.
That said, because of English speakers’ widely familiar association of the term with Jews as victims, to use pogrom to describe violence perpetrated by Jews is provocative. As to whether it is appropriate to refer to recent attacks by Jewish settlers on Palestinians, it seems to me that this question sidesteps the more important question of whether the actions being called pogroms are appropriate.
Call it what it is: “settler terrorism”
Sara Yael Hirschhorn
’22-’23 Research Fellow at the Center for Antisemitism Research at the ADL, and author, “City on a Hilltop: American Jews and the Israeli Settler Movement”
Let me say first with a loud and clear conscience: What happened in Huwara was abhorrent, immoral, and unconscionable and certainly was not committed in my name.
But to paraphrase Raymond Carver’s famous formulation: How do we talk about it when we talk about Huwara? What kind of descriptive and analytical framework can adequately and contextually interpret that horrific event?
The shorthand of choice seems to be “pogrom” — but it isn’t clear that all who deploy the term are signifying the same thing. For some, pogrom is a synonym for pillage, rampage, fire, property damage and violence in the streets — a one-word general summary of brutal acts. For others, pogrom refers to vigilante justice, an abbreviated story of the non-state or non-institutional actors and their motivations.
More specifically, however, pogrom is seemingly being mobilized as a metaphor to Jewish history, juxtaposing the Jewish victims of yesterday to the Jewish-Israeli perpetrators of today, an implicit analogy to the prelude to the Shoah, recasting Zionists as organized bands of genocidaires (with or without regime sponsorship) like the Cossacks, the Nationalist Fronts or even the Einsatzgruppen. Some would use the word to incorporate all three meanings (and more).
As a historian, I am troubled by the haphazard and harmful use of terms that are attached to a specific time and place — such as the thousand-year history of Jews in the Rhinelands and Eastern Europe, with many layers of imperial, national, local, economic and religious forces that precipitated these events — in such an ahistorical manner. Nor do I find the parallels between Zionists and Nazis to be historically careful (if deliberately offensive) — the State of Israel is committing crimes in the West Bank, but not a genocide. The equivalence also all too easily and incorrectly grafts tropes of racism and white supremacy drawn from American history into the West Bank’s soil.
So what to say about Huwara? Israel — for reasons both political and lexiconographical — has failed to consistently adopt a term for such attacks. (Often the euphemism of “errant weeds” who are “taking matters into their own hands” is the choice of Knesset politicians.) To my mind, the best term is “settler terrorism,” which puts Jewish-Israeli acts on par with Palestinian terrorism. It should also mean that these actions merit the same consequences under the occupation like trial, imprisonment, home demolition and other deterrents enforced against all those who choose the path of violence.
Last but not least, a pogrom was historically an unpunished crime against humanity that led only to war and annihilation. Don’t we aspire for more in Israel/Palestine?
Palestinians call it “ethnic cleansing”
Ibrahim Eid Dalalsha
Director, Horizon Center for Political Studies and Media Outreach, Ramallah, and member of Israel Policy Forum’s Critical Neighbors task force
Palestinians generally view and describe what happened during Sunday’s Huwara attacks as “racist hate crimes seeking to destroy and dispossess the Palestinian people of their homes and properties.” While no specific term has been used to describe these attacks, it was likened to the barbaric and savage invasion of Baghdad by Hulagu, the 13th-century Mongol commander.
Palestinian intellectuals tend to use “ethnic cleansing,” savage and barbaric ethnically motivated violence against innocent civilians, as another way of referring to these attacks. When such events include killing, Palestinian politicians and intellectuals tend to use the term massacre, or “majzara,” to underline the irrational and indiscriminate violence against defenseless civilians. I don’t think the term “pogrom” and its historic connotation are widely known to most people here. From a Palestinian perspective, using such terms, including “Holocaust,” is not considered a mistake. In fact, even using “Holocaust“ to describe violence against Palestinian civilians in and around 1948 was not considered a mistake until very recently when it caused such a saga for Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in Germany.
View of cars burned by Jewish settlers during riots in Huwara, in the West Bank, near Nablus, Feb. 27, 2023. (Nasser Ishtayeh/Flash90)
In the name of historical accuracy
Rukhl Schaechter
Yiddish Editor, The Forward
The recent attacks by Israeli settlers on Palestinians in Huwara are abhorrent. I commend those in Israel calling them peulot teror, “actions of terror,” and I trust that the perpetrators will be brought to justice. But these riots were not pogroms.
The word pogrom refers to one of the many violent riots and subsequent massacres of Jews in Eastern Europe between the 17th and 20th centuries. These attacks were committed by local non-Jewish, often peasant populations. They were instigated by rabble-rousers like Bogdan Chmielnicki, who led a Cossack and peasant uprising against Polish rule in Ukraine in 1648 and ended up destroying hundreds of Jewish communities. According to eyewitnesses, the attackers also committed atrocities on pregnant women.
Note that the massacres of Jews carried out by the Nazis, and the murders of Armenians by the Turkish government at the turn of the 20th century — as horrific as they were — were never called pogroms because in both cases, there was a government behind it. In the name of historic accuracy, let’s continue to use the word pogrom solely for mob attacks on and massacres of Jews.
When the Poles banned “pogrom”
Samuel D. Kassow
Professor of History, Trinity College, Hartford, Connecticut
In Poland in the late 1930s, altercations between a Jew and a Pole sometimes ended with either the Jew or the Pole getting badly hurt or even killed. When the victim was a Pole, mobs of Poles rampaged through Jewish neighborhoods smashing windows, looting shops and often beating or even killing Jews. Poles often held Jews collectively responsible for the death of one of their own. This happened in Przytyk, Minsk-Mazowieck, Grodno and other places. Jews called these riots “pogroms,” which they were. But the Polish government banned use of the term in the press. After all, “pogrom” was a Russian word, and “pogroms” happened only in a place characterized by barbarism and ignorance. Since Poland was not Russia, and since Poles were eminently civilized, logically speaking, pogroms simply did not take place in Poland. What happened in these towns were to be called “excesses” (zajscia). But certainly not pogroms!
I take it that since we Jews are so civilized, we too are incapable of pogroms. So should we label what these settlers did “‘excesses”? Or perhaps we should take a deep breath and call them pogroms?
A Jewish, but not exclusive, history
Henry Abramson
Historian
The word “pogrom” is rooted in time and place, although the type of violence it describes is as old as human history. It is a Russian word, but it entered the English language in the late 19th century through the medium of Yiddish-speakers, outraged at the wave of antisemitic disturbances that surged under rule of the last tsar of the Russian Empire, Nicholas II. Russians themselves used a variety of words for the ugly phenomenon, with translations like “riot” or “persecution,” but the term “pogrom” proved the most evocative: the Slavic prefix “po” suggests a directed attack, and the root “grom” is the word for “thunder.” A pogrom, therefore, meant a focused point where a great deal of energy was dissipated in a single dramatic act of violence.
The focused point, in the context of that dark history, was the civilian Jewish population in the tiny shtetls that dotted the Pale of Settlement. In this regard the word could be used to encompass attacks on Jewish populations from as long ago as the year 38 in Alexandria, Egypt. It does not, however, have any specific designation to indicate that Jews are the victims.
—
The post The JTA conversation: Pogrom? Terrorism? What do we call what happened in Huwara? appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Islamic Group CAIR Protests Expected Sale of TikTok to ‘Anti-Palestinian Billionaires’
CAIR officials give press conference on the Israel-Hamas war. Photo: Kyle Mazza / SOPA Images/Sipa USA via Reuters Connect
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a prominent Muslim advocacy group linked to extremist organizations, has sent a letter to US lawmakers claiming that the expected sale of the social media platform TikTok’s US operations to a group of investors that includes Jewish and pro-Israel businessmen could suppress online criticism of Israel.
In the letter, dated Oct. 28, CAIR claimed that some of the rumored buyers — Oracle co-founder and board chair Larry Ellison, Fox Corporation CEO Lachlan Murdoch, and Dell Technologies CEO Michael Dell — are “anti-Palestinian billionaires” seeking to silence TikTok users critical of Israel’s defensive military campaign in Gaza. The group urged lawmakers to oppose any sale that, in its words, would replace “Chinese disinformation” with “anti-Palestinian disinformation.”
The letter comes as the Trump administration is reportedly finalizing a deal with China to transfer majority ownership of the popular video-sharing platform TikTok from the Chinese company ByteDance to a group of US investors. The move follows the 2024 passage of the Protecting Americans From Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, which required ByteDance to divest TikTok or face a US ban.
CAIR warned that Oracle could play a central role in the new ownership structure, potentially controlling TikTok’s powerful recommendation algorithm. The organization alleged that such control could be used to downrank content critical of Israel while promoting pro-Israel narratives.
Jewish content creators and employees of TikTok have warned over the past two years, amid the war in Gaza, that the platform promotes antisemitism and has pushed an anti-Israel and anti-Western bias among its young base of users. Specifically, many activists have argued that the algorithm systemically peddles anti-Israel content and disinformation and has become a main vehicle driving antisemitism among the youth.
Ellison, a longtime supporter of Israel, has donated tens of millions of dollars to the Friends of the IDF [Israel Defense Forces] nonprofit organization and maintained a personal relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. CAIR also pointed to the Ellison family’s recent media acquisition of CBS News through Skydance Media, calling it evidence of growing influence by “anti-Palestinian ideologues.”
The letter further accused Dell of supporting the Israeli military through his company’s technology subsidiaries, while citing the Murdoch family’s record of “anti-Palestinian propaganda” via Fox News. Venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz and private equity firm Silver Lake, also rumored to be part of the deal, were criticized for investing in Israeli defense technology firms.
CAIR said TikTok had already begun limiting pro-Palestinian expression, referencing the company’s July 2025 hiring of a former Israeli soldier to monitor user speech. The group claimed this reflected a troubling pattern that could worsen under the new ownership.
While CAIR framed the sale as a threat to free speech, supporters of the divestment argue that US ownership would better safeguard data privacy and national security. The Trump administration has not publicly addressed CAIR’s allegations, and negotiations with China reportedly remain ongoing.
US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said on Thursday that China has approved the transfer agreement for TikTok, adding that he expects it to move forward in the coming weeks or months but giving no other details.
CAIR has long portrayed itself as a Muslim civil rights organization but has faced bipartisan criticism for controversial statements about Israel and for defending individuals tied to extremist movements. Israeli officials and Jewish advocacy groups have frequently accused CAIR of spreading anti-Israel propaganda under the guise of civil rights advocacy.
In the 2000s, CAIR was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing case. Politico noted in 2010 that “US District Court Judge Jorge Solis found that the government presented ‘ample evidence to establish the association’” of CAIR with the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas.
According to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), “some of CAIR’s current leadership had early connections with organizations that are or were affiliated with Hamas.” CAIR has disputed the accuracy of the ADL’s claim and asserted that it “unequivocally condemn[s] all acts of terrorism, whether carried out by al-Qa’ida, the Real IRA, FARC, Hamas, ETA, or any other group designated by the US Department of State as a ‘Foreign Terrorist Organization.’”
CAIR leaders have also found themselves embroiled in further controversy since Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel.
The head of CAIR, for example, said he was “happy” to witness Hamas’s rampage of rape, murder, and kidnapping of Israelis in what was the largest single-day slaughter of Jews since the Holocaust.
“The people of Gaza only decided to break the siege — the walls of the concentration camp — on Oct. 7,” CAIR co-founder and executive director Nihad Awad said in a speech during the American Muslims for Palestine convention in Chicago in November 2023. “And yes, I was happy to see people breaking the siege and throwing down the shackles of their own land, and walk free into their land, which they were not allowed to walk in.”
Uncategorized
‘Blood and Soil’: Harvard Conservative Group Publishes Hitleresque Essay Amid Rise in Right-Wing Antisemitism
April 20, 2025, Cambridge, MA, USA: Harvard University and Harvard Square scenes with students and pedestrians. Photo: Kenneth Martin/ZUMA Press Wire via Reuters Connect.
A conservative student magazine at Harvard University has been suspended by its board of directors following publication of an article that echoed the words of Nazi leader Adolf Hitler, escalating concerns about rising interest in Nazism, white nationalism, and illiberal political theories in the “new right” conservative movement.
The Harvard Salient published an opinion piece in September which bore likeness to key tenets of Nazi doctrine, as first articulated in 1925 in Hitler’s autobiographical manifesto Mein Kampf, or My Struggle, and later in a blitzkrieg of speeches he delivered throughout the Nazi era to justify his genocide of European Jews.
Written by David F.X. Army, the article chillingly echoed a January 1939 Reichstag speech in which Hitler portended mass killings of Jews as the outcome of Germany’s inexorable march toward war with France and Great Britain. Whereas Hitler said, “France to the French, England to the English, America to the Americans, and Germany to the Germans,” Army wrote, “Germany belongs to the Germans, France to the French, Britain to the British, America to the Americans.”
Army also called for the adoption of notions of “blood, soil, language, and love of one’s own” in response to concerns over large-scale migration of Muslims into Europe.
In Nazi ideology, “blood and soil,” or Blut und Boden, encapsulated the party’s belief in eugenics and racial purity; the German “Aryans’” right to expand into Eastern Europe to amass new Lebensraum, or “living space”; and the transformation of the German peasantry into an agricultural class which stood in contrasts to Jews, many of whom lived in cities.
The Salient maintains that Army has not consumed Nazi literature and that no one who reviewed his contribution recognized its Nazi tropes. Denouncing scrutiny of the Salient as a political conspiracy on a campus in which students say promoting conservative viewpoints is a social crime, magazine editor Richard Y. Rodgers said The Harvard Crimson, the main campus newspaper, converted the “resemblance” into a “headline.”
“Our clarification, that neither the author nor the editors had recognized the resemblance and that the phrase long predates the Third Reich, was mentioned but immediately minimized. The insinuation stuck,” Rodgers continued. “The coverage forms a coherent script. The conservative scholar becomes the reactionary theorist. The traditionalist student becomes the bigot. The publication that prints their ideas becomes the threat. ‘Fascism’ is no longer a historical reference but a weaponized cliche, a way to place opponents outside the moral guardrails of the university. To be labeled ‘authoritarian,’ ‘integralist,’ or Nazi-adjacent is to be rendered abominable.”
The Salient‘s alumni board announced on Sunday that the magazine would temporarily halt its operations pending an investigation.
“The Harvard Salient has recently published articles containing reprehensible, abusive, and demeaning … material that is, in addition, wholly inimical to the conservative principles for which the magazine stands,” it said. “The board has also received deeply disturbing and credible complaints about the broader culture of the organization. It is our fiduciary responsibility to investigate these matters fully and take appropriate action to address them. We are therefore pausing operations of the magazine, effective immediately, pending our review.”
Rodgers announced on Tuesday that the conservative student magazine would remain active despite the suspension.
“This action was taken without notice to or consent from the duly appointed leadership of the organization and in direct violation of the bylaws governing The Harvard Salient,” Rodgers wrote. “The Harvard Salient continues to operate under its legitimate editorial leadership until further notice.”
The suspension comes amid a broader national debate over what defines “conservative principles” in a Republican Party divided between Reaganites — intellectual descendants of former US President Ronald Reagan who support limited government, American stewardship of global security, and the existence of the State of Israel — and populists who combine protectionism and isolationist foreign policy doctrines with far-right views on race, nationalism, and, in some cases, the Jewish people, the last of which is increasingly present in the rhetoric of social media influencers such as Ian Carroll, Nicholas Fuentes, Tucker Carlson, and Candace Owens.
President Donald Trump, a Republican whose rise to power was largely fueled by the new populists, has attempted to hold the two factions together with a domestic and foreign policy agenda that appeals to both — for example, imposing harsh sanctions on elite higher education institutions, outlawing racial preferences and DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) initiatives, and succeeding in geopolitical contests which project American strength in strategic areas — but that has not prevented their clashing over the rise of antisemitism and white nationalism on the right.
Just this week, Tucker Carlson, a former prime-time Fox News host, featured Fuentes on his podcast, a move that appeared to be a direct challenge to the right’s taboo on cavorting with antisemites.
Fuentes — who has referred to African Americans as “n—gs” and called for dissolving the American government and replacing it with a theocracy based on his interpretation of the Catholic religion — has said “I love Hitler” and that rape is “not so big a deal.” Following the 2017 Unite the Right Rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, Fuentes, addressing Jews and minorities, said on Facebook, “You can call us racists, white supremacists, Nazis & bigots. You can disavow us on social media from your cushy Campus Reform job. But you will not replace us.” In 2021, he called for “discussing Jewish power,” a topic that he continues to cultivate daily, drawing on Holocaust revisionist literatures and centuries of antisemitic tropes.
In 2022, Fuentes attended dinner with then-former President Trump, whom Israeli leaders have described as the most pro-Israel chief executive in US history, at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida. Fuentes was reportedly brought to the property, unannounced, by rapper Kanye West, who was invited to dinner with Trump despite being in the middle of a multi-year episode in which he promoted antisemitism and white nationalism.
Trump, whose eldest daughter is a Jewish convert, later downplayed the incident.
“This past week, Kanye West called me to have dinner at Mar-a-lago,” Trump said in a statement addressing the public relations conflagration the dinner set off. “Shortly thereafter, he unexpectedly showed up with three of his friends, whom I knew nothing about. We had dinner on Tuesday evening with many members present on the back patio. The dinner was quick and uneventful. They then left for the airport.”
Prominent conservative leaders have said recently, responding to the revelation of a “Young Republicans” group chat in which party workers exchanged racist and antisemitic messages, that growing antisemitism on the right must be acknowledged and fought.
“Listen, about a decade ago, antisemitism began rising on the left, and the Democrat Party did nothing,” US Sen. Ted Cruz, a Republican, said on Oct. 22. “But the danger that I want to highlight to you tonight is not antisemitism on the left, it is antisemitism on the right. And I’m here to tell you that in the last six months, I have seen antisemitism rising on the right in a way I have never seen it in my entire life.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
Uncategorized
Feminist vs. Jewish: These women say NYC’s mayoral election is forcing a painful choice
(New York Jewish Week) — Tracey Wells didn’t necessarily want to see Andrew Cuomo resign in disgrace as New York’s governor in 2021.
“But I firmly believe that you believe women,” Wells, the owner of a recruitment firm, said, noting at the time, New York’s attorney general had substantiated sexual harassment claims from 11 women. That number that would later rise to 13 following a federal Department of Justice investigation.
Nonetheless, Wells, who is Jewish, surprised herself by deciding to vote for Cuomo to become mayor of New York City. She made the decision in part because she sharply disagrees with Democratic nominee Zohran Mamdani’s critical views on Israel.
“He’s not my favorite, but he’s better than the alternative options,” Wells said about Cuomo, rationalizing that the allegations against him could have been more egregious. “He’s obviously been in trouble before. I’m a woman, a feminist, and I do think that the things that he got in trouble for, 10 or 15 years ago, would have never been an issue.”
Wells’ thinking reflects the complicated calculus facing many Jewish women in New York City this week. Mamdani, the frontrunner, has divided Jewish voters with his vociferous criticism of Israel, and many of those who are spurning him over that see Cuomo, who is polling a distant second, as the best chance to keep him out of Gracie Mansion. But Cuomo has his own baggage: a track record of sexual harassment allegations — which he denies — that derailed his last stint in public office, and remains a turnoff for many voters.
“As somebody who identifies as a feminist, I really wish there was a better option,” said a Lower Manhattan 28-year-old woman who works in influencer marketing. She declined to share her name, citing concerns about publicizing her voting record.
“Every other election that I voted in, I’ve been very sure in my decision, and I’ve been excited to cast my vote and use my voice,” the woman said. “In this election, it feels like I’m voting more against something than for something that I’m excited about.”
Usually, she casts a ballot on the first day of early voting. But this year, she waffled until Wednesday, when she voted for Cuomo — not to support him, but to count against Mamdani.
“As the candidate who won the Democratic primary, I normally would just go for it,” she said. “But I think just because so much of his platform has been around that [anti-Zionism], I struggle, I fear, that that would energize that super anti-Israel base more. And anti-Zionism often bleeds into antisemitism.”
A fevered push among many Jewish leaders to get out the vote against Mamdani has largely sidestepped Cuomo’s history with women. Rabbi Elliot Cosgrove, in a Shabbat sermon urging New Yorkers to back Cuomo, said only that Cuomo, “like any politician, comes with both personal and professional baggage.”
A letter quoting Cosgrove’s sermon has now been signed by more than 1,150 rabbis across the country, including hundreds of women.
Tracy Kaplowitz, a rabbi at the Stephen Wise Free Synagogue on the Upper West Side, was among them. Asked about how Jewish women should weigh the allegations against Cuomo as they vote, Kaplan said, “Judaism believes in the dignity of every human being. People need to make their decisions honoring the dignity of every human being. We are not endorsing any candidate. We’re not encouraging people to vote in a particular way that’s not our role or our place, and we recognize people will come to different conclusions.”
The writer Emily Tamkin lives in Washington, D.C., and cannot vote in the election. Still, as she wrote in The Forward, the pro-Cuomo push among prominent Jews feels unnerving.
“The failure of so many Jewish leaders to meaningfully engage with what Cuomo’s election might mean for women has deeply alarmed me,” Tamkin wrote.
“The idea that I, or any woman, has to pretend that the normalization of sexual harassment in politics is somehow irrelevant to our day-to-day safety — because our commitment to Jewish peoplehood comes first — seems to me to be an extremely limited understanding of Jewish safety,” she continued.
Some rabbis have in fact called attention to Cuomo’s history as a reason to find the election challenging for Jewish voters. “When we are considering whom to elect as leaders, a candidate who has been morally compromised should not easily collect our votes,” Rabbi Rick Jacobs, head of the Reform movement, wrote in an essay. “As I have questioned what Mamdani might do based on his statements, so too I question what Andrew Cuomo might do in light of past findings of his pattern of harassment.”
Rachel Gildiner, executive director of SRE Network, a group that helps Jewish organizations achieve gender equity and create inclusive workplaces, said the election is doubly challenging for many Jewish women.
“Today, many Jewish women are feeling pressure from all sides and wondering if their own safety and belonging are being fully seen and understood,” Gildiner said in a statement. “At SRE, we are focused on helping the organizations we work with support women who are experiencing the double threat of antisemitism and misogyny in this moment. To all the women struggling: we see you and you are not alone.”
Some Jewish women say they feel no need to reconcile themselves to supporting a candidate with a record of allegations against him — because they prefer Mamdani anyway.
“I’m really happy with Zohran,” said Jaime Berman, a 33-year-old attorney and one of two Democratic state committee members for the 76th Assembly district, representing the Upper East Side. “And also Cuomo is literally the most evil person in New York, and is a sexual harasser.”
But for many Jewish women, the decision is proving to be fraught to the election’s very last days. Alisha Outridge, a tech entrepreneur in her late 30s living in Manhattan, said she sees advantages and disadvantages to both leading candidates. For her, the allegations against Cuomo aren’t weighing heavily.
“I think it’s bad, but I wouldn’t make decisions based on who our mayor is on that,” she said, noting that she is leaning toward Mamdani. “Local policy is really what I think is most impactful.”
Blima Marcus, an Orthodox nurse in Brooklyn, wrote on Facebook that she had abandoned an earlier promise not to vote at all and would cast a ballot for Cuomo if she can make it to the polls.
“A sexual predator is a red line for me, but I must say that after watching Zohran Mamdani carefully and listening to what he does and does not say I don’t want him in office and I don’t want it on my conscience that I sat this election out,” she wrote.
For Wells in Williamsburg, her vote for Cuomo is coming with hope that the mistakes of the past are not soon repeated.
“Obviously, he made a few bad calls,” Wells said. “I would like him to not make any bad calls as the mayor of the city.”
The post Feminist vs. Jewish: These women say NYC’s mayoral election is forcing a painful choice appeared first on The Forward.