RSS
The Predictable Rise of Zohran Mamdani — and His Congressional Appeasers
Zohran Mamdani. Photo: Ron Adar / SOPA Images via Reuters Connect
Zohran Mamdani, the State Assemblyman and Democratic nominee for New York City mayor, was dealt another reason to celebrate this week, when it was revealed that the young socialist had won the most votes ever in a New York City primary.
While many of Mamdani’s progressive comrades are reveling in their candidate’s electoral success, his commanding victory on June 24 is leaving establishment Democrats concerned, confused, and in shock.
Yet for those who have kept a discerning eye on the left-wing trajectory of the Democratic Party, the ascendance of a politician such as Mamdani came as no surprise, and was in fact entirely predictable.
What first began in 2019 as an unwillingness to disassociate from an energized leftist cohort of lawmakers entering Congress, has now evolved into a troubling pattern of Democrats failing to reject candidates espousing dangerous anti-American and antisemitic positions.
Mamdani, the presumptive next mayor of New York City, is transparent about his hatred for Israel, and his tolerance of violent threats against Jews. His election poses a direct threat to the safety and security of Jewish residents in America’s largest city.
Thirty-six hours following the October 7 massacre, the lawmaker, in a statement on X, blamed the “ongoing violence” on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israel’s government.
He has made no attempts to scrub his social media of his depraved posts, which include flipping the middle finger at a Christopher Columbus statue, and calling Jew-hating Democratic Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) his hero.
Despite being given repeated opportunities to condemn the phrase “Globalize the Intifada,” a term used as a rallying cry to murder Jews, Mamdani defends its use, and often reverts to speaking about his broader objective to root out “all bigotry.”
For their part, New York’s Democratic Congressional delegation is buckling under the progressive weight of their party.
With the exception of Long Island Congresswoman Laura Gillen (D-NY), who said that Socialist Mamdani is “too extreme” to lead New York City, the state’s liberal lawmakers are refusing to rule out endorsing the socialist in the general election, while delivering varying statements on Mamdani’s defense of the “Globalize the Intifada” phrase.
When pressed to repudiate Mamdani’s defense of the violent expression, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) stated in an interview on MSNBC that Mamdani should “clarify his position” on the use of the term, which he admits is “unacceptable.”
The State’s senior Senator, Chuck Schumer, who will likely face a primary challenge from the left when he is up for reelection in 2028, carefully curated his words and condemned the phrase without mentioning Mamdani directly.
Schumer’s Democratic colleague, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand’s, efforts to denounce Mamdani for failing to discredit “Globalize the Intifada” was soon eclipsed by the Junior Senator walking back her harsh words and apologizing to the mayoral nominee for saying in that same interview that Mamdani had made references to “global jihad.”
Even Bronx Congressman Ritchie Torres, who objects to the jihadi slogan, is tempering any distancing from Mamdani and saying that he is “committed to a working relationship with him.”
Indeed, once radicals like Omar or Mamdani gain power, Democrats embark on a roadmap of expressing displeasure with some of their views, while simultaneously employing political jargon centering on “engagement,” “discussion,” and “conversation,” as if Mamdani’s fanatical positions emanate from a sincere misreading of the issues rather than being anchored to a deeply held anti-American worldview.
Americans were clued into this strategy years ago, when then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) agreed to a 2019 Rolling Stone photo shoot alongside members of the new insurgent wing of the party, including Democratic Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY) and Ilhan Omar (MN).
Democrats weren’t about to reject this new faction of disruptors and leftist ideologues; they were going to lean in and learn from them.
As such, in the coming weeks, New Yorkers can expect more Democratic officials to follow the lead of New York Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Jerry Nadler, both of whom have endorsed Mamdani.
It’s worth noting that Jeffries has officially supported anti-Israel figures in the past, with the Minority Leader formally backing disgraced former Congressman Jamaal Bowman during last year’s Democratic primary in New York’s 16th Congressional District.
Combined with the actions of major unions, such as the United Federation of Teachers (UFT), announcing their endorsement of Mamdani earlier this week, it’s hard to envision a scenario under which Democrats launch a serious counterweight to Mamdani’s threatening candidacy.
And while those who live outside the city’s liberal ecosystem are quick to indicate that a nominee as radical as Mamdani could never rise to power in their region, most Democrats dominating the national political landscape harbor little will to wrest control away from radicals in their party.
Senior Editor of Commentary Magazine, Seth Mandel, recently wrote about Senators Chris Murphy (D-CT) and Andy Kim’s (D-NJ) departure from the pro-Jewish sympathies of their predecessors.
As Mandel notes, over the last year, Sens. Murphy and Kim both voted to block arms sales to Israel, just as the Jewish State was battling Iran’s terrorist proxies.
Murphy has also praised Mamdani, calling him a “dynamic” and “new voice.”
Their hostility towards Israel may not present in the same dramatic fashion as Mamdani’s — but their objective conveys a similar desire to complete the progressive sea change in the Democratic Party, albeit through the more palatable and cultured Congressional process.
After years of accommodating anti-Israel politicians, Mamdani’s candidacy is an unsettling testament to the consequences of indifference, and that hard-left antisemitic politicians may no longer be outliers, but reflect a frightening and new normal.
Irit Tratt is a writer who resides in New York. Follow her on X @Irit_Tratt.
The post The Predictable Rise of Zohran Mamdani — and His Congressional Appeasers first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Do We Have the Courage to Follow the New Route Home?
A Torah scroll. Photo: RabbiSacks.org.
One of ancient Greece’s earliest philosophers, Heraclitus, is recorded as having said: “There is nothing permanent except change.” Along the same lines, he stated: “No man ever steps in the same river twice.”
The sentiment of this ancient wisdom is simple – those who stay in the same place and never embrace new realities are doomed to disaster.
There are numerous examples from history of those who refused to change when catastrophe loomed. But far more refreshing are those who understood, when faced with disaster, that a correction was needed, sometimes urgently.
One famous example is the sixteenth-century Dutch leader, William of Orange. In 1566, William faced an impossible choice. The king of Spain, Philip II, was tightening his iron grip on the Low Countries – crushing religious freedom and centralizing power in ways that had never been attempted before. The old system – accepting foreign rule while hoping for gradual reform – had failed spectacularly.
William could have clung to the familiar, doubling down on diplomatic appeals and hoping for the best. But instinctively, he knew that this wouldn’t work out well. Instead, he did something revolutionary: he acknowledged that the old route wasn’t working and opted to change course.
The Dutch Revolt that followed could be viewed as a military campaign, but actually it was much more than that: it was a complete reimagining of what could be and how that could be achieved. William became the first Stadtholder of what would become the Dutch Republic, creating a new model that bore little resemblance to the monarchical systems that had preceded it.
The change was radical, and initially it was both uncomfortable and uncertain. But it worked – because William and his supporters dared to honestly assess what wasn’t working and make the necessary adjustments until they got it right. What followed was a century of prosperity, known as the Dutch Golden Age.
This willingness to recalculate in the face of potential failure isn’t merely a political strategy – it’s a fundamental principle of how progress can proceed. And nowhere is this principle more beautifully illustrated than in Parshas Devarim.
Modern technology has given us an unexpected teacher in resilience. When you set your GPS to a destination, it sets your course – but inevitably, you will make a mistake and take a wrong turn. Without a fuss, your GPS will recalculate, offering you a new route to your destination. There’s no judgment, and no disappointment.
Occasionally, the GPS will try to send you back to the original route, but more often it will simply offer you another pathway. Now, imagine if life worked like that. Imagine if every time we found ourselves going off course, we were offered the new route back to the best version of ourselves.
This is precisely the approach Moshe Rabbeinu takes in Devarim. As the Jewish people stand on the threshold of the Promised Land, about to change course completely from the secure existence they had enjoyed for four decades, Moshe offers them a platform to succeed in their new situation. Not criticism or recrimination. Instead, he offers something far more valuable: a retrospective that focuses not on blame but on learning from mistakes and charting a new route ahead.
Yes, there were the spies who brought back a discouraging report, and the repercussions were devastating. So, beware of those whose advice will set you back.
Yes, there was the golden calf, and you almost went off a cliff before your journey even started. So, don’t fall into the trap of attractive ideas that will end up taking you down.
Yes, there was the rebellion of Korach. So, don’t allow yourself to be drawn into self-destructive insurrections.
Moshe acknowledges these missteps, not to draw attention to the mistakes, but to explain that every misstep is just a stumble along the way to your predetermined destination.
For forty years, the Israelites had lived as perpetual wanderers, always looked after by God – manna falling from heaven, water flowing from rocks, clouds providing direction and protection. They had become accustomed to a kind of spiritual dependency, where their basic needs were miraculously provided, and their major decisions were made through divine signs.
Now, as they prepared to enter the Land of Israel, everything was about to change. They would need to plant crops and harvest them, dig wells and maintain them, establish courts and ensure justice, defend borders and govern cities. The wilderness mindset – reactive, dependent, whiny – had to give way to a completely different approach: proactive, responsible, and focused on building a society.
Perhaps no figure in Jewish history understood this principle better than Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai. As Jerusalem collapsed under the weight of the Roman siege in 70 CE, he understood that the Temple would imminently be destroyed.
Unless there was a drastic adaptation to new realities, Judaism would disappear. The old system – Temple-based Judaism centered in Jerusalem – was collapsing. The rebels who presided over Jerusalem, including his own nephew, refused to consider any alternative. They clung to the familiar, convinced that doubling down was the only honorable path.
But Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai chose to recalculate. His famous request to the Roman general Vespasian – “Give me Yavneh and its sages” – was an acknowledgement that a new route was required to get to the same destination.
The route through Temple worship was no longer available. So, instead of doggedly pursuing the same path and pretending that the destruction wasn’t happening, Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai calmly assessed the new landscape and found an alternative route: a Judaism that could survive and thrive without the Temple, a Judaism centered on study and scholarship rather than animal sacrifices and pilgrimage.
The transformation was radical. The Judaism that emerged from Yavneh may have been significantly different from what had come before, but it worked — spectacularly. And the proof is that it has survived for nearly two millennia. Meanwhile, those who refused to change course disappeared without a trace once the Temple was destroyed.
This theme resonates powerfully with Shabbat Chazon, the Shabbat of Isaiah’s Vision that precedes Tisha B’Av. The haftarah from Isaiah that gives this Shabbat its name is predominantly a prophecy of doom, and a divine indictment of Jewish failures.
But if you look more carefully, you’ll see something else entirely: embedded within the rebuke is the ultimate recalculation. Isaiah acknowledges that the Jewish people are off course and the consequences for that will be severe – exile, destruction, and the loss of the Temple.
But the prophet’s message isn’t “Game Over.” Instead, his underlying message is “Come now, let us reason together” (Is. 1:18) — even after destruction, we can recalculate. The vision Isaiah presents isn’t only about destruction, it’s also about reconstruction.
The entire concept of Tisha B’Av embodies this principle. When we fast and mourn, it’s not just about wallowing in historical tragedy. It’s about engaging honestly with our missteps so we can find our way back to the correct route.
Our day of mourning is about the destruction of the past, but simultaneously it is also a day of recalculation, a hopeful acknowledgement that while we may have taken wrong turns, we remain on course for our destination.
Moshe’s retrospective in Parshat Devarim and Isaiah’s vision in the haftarah of Shabbat Chazon both carry the same essential message: it’s never “Game Over.” No matter how far off course we’ve traveled, no matter how many wrong turns we’ve taken, the GPS of divine providence is always ready to find the route that will get us back on track.
The question is only whether we have the wisdom to listen and the courage to follow that new route home.
The author is a rabbi in Beverly Hills, California.
RSS
Shock Poll: Does the Silent Majority in Australia — and Beyond — Actually Exist?
Car in New South Wales, Australia graffitied with antisemitic message. The word “F***” has been removed from this image. Photo: Screenshot
On July 29, 2025, a national poll in Australia delivered a deeply unsettling message: perhaps the “silent majority” that we believed in for so long — those decent, fair-minded Australians who would reject antisemitism when it crossed a line — was never really there to begin with.
The survey revealed that just 24% of Australians hold a positive view of Jews, while 28% express negative views, and the rest are indifferent or unsure.
This is not the fringe — it is the center. And it lands after two years of unrelenting escalation, during which antisemitic incidents in Australia have surged by over 300%. Synagogues have been firebombed. Jewish businesses have been attacked. Marches in our cities have featured chants glorifying terror and calling for the annihilation of the Jewish State.
For the past two years, we’ve watched the unthinkable become normalized — and still, the silence has persisted. We reassured ourselves that when things got bad, or worse, Australians — quiet, pragmatic, egalitarian — would draw a line. We believed that behind the chaos of social media and the radicalism of campus protests, there was a steady, principled middle who would never let hate take hold. But perhaps we were wrong. Or perhaps we simply misread the signs.
We saw moments that encouraged hope: political leaders condemning antisemitism after high-profile incidents; universities adopting or referencing definitions of antisemitism — though often watered down, selectively applied, or lacking enforcement; and a few faith and community leaders standing shoulder to shoulder with Jewish communities in symbolic gestures of unity. We mistook these signals as proof that the mainstream was with us — that the loudest voices did not represent the majority.
But those signs were often just that — symbolic. Many condemnations were performative. Institutional policies were rarely enforced. And while we heard reassurances from officials that “most Australians reject hate,” we now know they didn’t have the data to back it up.
So why did we believe?
The truth is that the idea of a silent majority is emotionally powerful. It reassures us that we are not alone. It suggests that while antisemitism may be loud, decency is quietly stronger. It gives us permission to believe in the goodness of our neighbors, even when the evidence is thin. It tells us that democracy will self-correct, that morality will prevail in the end.
But increasingly, that belief feels more like a coping mechanism than a reality. We’ve clung to it without data, without proof, and — if we’re honest — without election results to support it. Because the alternative is terrifying: the alternative is that the center is not asleep, but absent.
And if the silent majority doesn’t exist — if it never did — what then?
It means that antisemitism isn’t just being ignored; it’s being tolerated. It means that when politicians offer symbolic recognition of a Palestinian state while Hamas still holds hostages and preaches genocide, they are not defying their electorate — they may be reflecting it. It means that when university encampments promote terror and intimidate Jewish students, and administrators do nothing, it’s not cowardice — it may be calculated silence. It means that we are not surrounded by quiet allies, but by people who either don’t care or don’t know.
It also means that we can no longer wait for “them” to speak up.
This isn’t just happening in Australia. Across the Western world, the same pattern is emerging. In Canada, antisemitism on campuses is surging, and the government now flirts with symbolic recognition of a Palestinian state — not as part of peace negotiations, but as a political signal. In Ireland, Spain, Norway, and the UK, similar moves have rewarded those who glorify terror while ignoring those who seek dialogue. In the United States, antisemitism reached record highs last year, with Jewish students and communities increasingly ostracized for daring to speak the truth.
These are not isolated developments — they are part of a deeper pattern: the moral center is shrinking, and the hateful fringes are being normalized.
At StandWithUs Australia, we fight back with facts, with education, and with pride. We equip students and communities to speak up for truth, to push back against hatred. But we cannot do this alone. We are a small community. And now, more than ever, we need others to stand publicly — not silently — with us.
Because if the silent majority was ever real, now is the time to speak. And if it remains silent now, then we must confront the hardest truth of all: that it was never there to begin with.
In that case, the path forward changes.
We must stop seeking quiet affirmation and instead build loud, unignorable support. We must shift from trusting that others will step up, to ensuring that we are strong enough to lead. We must teach, advocate, organize, and call out moral cowardice for what it is — whether it comes from universities, governments, media, or community leaders.
Because if we’ve learned anything from the past two years, it’s that silence isn’t safety.
And comfort, no matter how convincing, is not the same as courage.
Michael Gencher is executive director StandWithUs Australia, an international nonpartisan education organization that supports Israel and fights antisemitism.
RSS
For the Angry Mob, Facts Don’t Matter
Greek riot police clash with pro-Palestinian protesters near the port of Rhodes during a demonstration targeting an Israeli cruise ship. Photo: Screenshot
Facts matter — especially when they involve blood libels and mobs with pitchforks over the latest news from Gaza.
The original blood libel, for centuries, was something akin to the “Jews make matzah with the blood of children,” and other horrific things, which makes the current allegation in 2025 of starvation of children in Gaza into an equally horrific act. It could be modern blood libel, except we collectively can’t seem to tell fact from fiction at this point.
Is there a grain of truth in the hideous photographs of starving children in Gaza? Are the facts on the ground, as the media would have you believe, as awful as they look ? I asked myself this as I found myself swimming in photographic-based horror. The children need to eat, this is clear.
In reality, there appear to be multiple factors and bad actors to blame on the current round of hideous accusations. There are the letters from various rabbis, there are the doctors within Gaza, and then there’s the UN, all declaring a horrible famine and with Israel being accused as the culprit.
Never mind that the UN is not properly delivering food aid, that terrorists on the ground are attacking and robbing trucks, Hamas terrorists are shooting civilians, and many other truths. Ignore The New York Times article declaring Hamas “not guilty” of stealing aid — despite serious evidence to the contrary.
Israel is the villain in every single story around the globe.
We’re told to accept the venomous narrative without question, and not to notice that the child in the viral starving photo has cerebral palsy and is suffering from hypoxia. No one wants to examine the facts — which also might implicate Hamas as co-creators of the despicable debacle.
No one in the online mob wants to point out that photos of children are being exploited based on medical conditions. None of these attacking articles mention the loaded aid trucks that the UN chooses not to deliver. Yes, Netanyahu’s siege is a direct cause of the famine. Yes, the UN has a part and responsibility to deliver food from the aid trucks. Yes, Hamas has been stealing aid. Yes, Hamas members appear rather chubby and are definitely not starving. Yes, Israel has a blockade. Yes, Hamas also has done a thousand other things to facilitate this famine, including refusing a ceasefire just last week, which again would stop the fighting and bring in aid.
Israel even allows aid to enter and be delivered from the air, and what does the media immediately do? The media calls it “Grotesque” in headlines over the weekend. The media condemns Israel no matter if they let in aid, or don’t let in aid.
The media condemns Israel now for allowing air drops, because “the airdrop might hit someone.”
The media bias is so obvious and so sickening at this point, because every single story, every single article is written to paint the nation of Israel as the evil villain.
Rarely if ever, does anyone ask, how are the numbers verified ? Who is in charge of delivering the aid, why is Hamas not being held accountable? Why did the UN not choose delivery routes for all the trucks ? Why isn’t Egypt opening its gate and delivering aid?
The double standard is utterly appalling. No matter the facts, no matter Israel’s efforts to negotiate a ceasefire, to offer aid, anything and everything is condemned by a rabid crowd who shrugs and says, “who cares who is to blame” before again condemning and demonizing Israel.
It’s become a complete waste of time to even bother writing or speaking with the anti-Israel crowd online, they don’t want to hear anything. “So what, who cares?” Because the truth be told, they only want to demonize Israel. If there are other factors such as the UN refusing to coordinate with the Israeli government, then the online mobs with pitchforks don’t want to even consider it. The double standard, the blind eye towards all the other factors contributing to the situation, will never be contemplated by the angry mob.
These same people don’t mention horrific conditions — and worse food insecurity situations all across the globe — because Israel can’t be blamed. We don’t know how much is true or false because there is so much villainizing, now aided by AI and photographs from other conflicts around the world, used without verification and with impunity.
Nothing will stop the mobs with pitchforks, even when the food situation improves. They don’t care about any of the other factors contributing to it. You will never hear their voices raised for the starving children of Yemen, Sudan, or anywhere else — because they only raise their voices to villainize the state of Israel.
It’s impossible to ignore the hatred right in the open. The angry online mob only wants to point fingers and scream; they won’t care or look at themselves when their poisonous words become actions on the ground that result in the murder of Jewish people thousands of miles away. Instead, they will feel justified — and that is a very dangerous thing for the entire world.
Alix Kahn is a writer of essays, poetry, short stories and more.