Uncategorized
A Warning From London Following Mamdani’s Election Victory in New York
New York City mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani holds a press conference at the Unisphere in the Queens borough of New York City, US, Nov. 5, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Kylie Cooper
The election of Zohran Mamdani as mayor of New York City marks a turning point in US urban politics, and its reverberations are already being felt well beyond the five boroughs.
To many on the American left, Mamdani represents hope: a democratic socialist, the son of immigrants, a man who speaks of fairness, affordability, and restoring dignity to those pushed to the margins of urban life. But to many others, especially within Jewish communities, his rise is deeply alarming.
From London, a city that has lived with a Muslim mayor for nearly a decade, the moment feels familiar. It also feels fraught.
It is worth stating at the outset that Sadiq Khan, for all the criticism he has faced, did not enter office with the same background of inflammatory or extremist statements as Mamdani. His political record was grounded in more mainstream Labour politics, and while he became a symbol of Britain’s multicultural ambitions, his own rhetoric rarely courted controversy of the kind now surrounding Mamdani.
As a life-long citizen of London, it is not clear even to me how responsible our mayor is for the alarming levels of antisemitism infecting our streets these days, nor how much of that responsibility is down to his Muslim identity. It shouldn’t matter what religion a mayor is, unless their religion influences their decisions in a way which runs counter to the wider society’s values and culture. But therein lies the problem — to trace the causes of almost intangible but very real cultural shifts and social tensions is virtually impossible in the moment.
Mamdani’s path to City Hall is undeniably historic. At 34, he is the youngest mayor in more than a century and the first Muslim to lead New York. His campaign energized hundreds of thousands — young voters, working-class immigrants, and a progressive base long disillusioned with establishment politics. His victory speech was filled with the language of empowerment: “This city belongs to you,” he told supporters, naming Yemeni bodega owners, Senegalese taxi drivers, and Mexican grandmothers among the architects of his movement.
Yet this language of inclusion exists alongside a record that many see as exclusionary, particularly toward Jews and supporters of Israel. Mamdani is a vocal supporter of the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement, which ultimately seeks to eliminate the world’s lone Jewish state. He has said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu should be arrested in New York under an ICC warrant, refused to repudiate the slogan “globalize the intifada,” and once stated at a Democratic Socialists of America conference that “we don’t need an investigation to know that the NYPD [New York Police Department] is racist, anti-queer, and a major threat to public safety.” Jewish groups, moderate Democrats, and survivors of repressive regimes are right to be concerned.
The anxiety is not merely ideological. In the aftermath of the Hamas-led Oct. 7, 2023, Palestinian terrorist attacks on Israel, antisemitic incidents surged across the West, including in New York and London. In that atmosphere, Mamdani’s framing of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in starkly anti-Israel terms, with no serious reckoning with the brutality of Hamas, struck many as morally evasive at best and hostile at worst. His critics question his judgment, and they are not wrong to do so.
In the UK, we have lived through some of these debates with Khan. London’s mayor is a Muslim of South Asian heritage, and Mamdani, though born in Uganda, is of Indian heritage through both parents. Khan speaks in the register of cosmopolitan liberalism. His supporters celebrate his ascent as proof of Britain’s openness. His critics, especially outside London, view his leadership as symbolic of a city that has drifted away from national cultural norms. Though no credible evidence links Khan’s policies to religious ideology, the perception of an unspoken alignment with Islamist grievances has persisted among some critics.
This perception has been shaped by moments that transcend formal policy. Public Ramadan displays in central London, including large-scale installations inaugurated by Khan, have been celebrated as signs of inclusivity, but many argue that Christian festivals have not received similar visibility. In late 2024, a halal-finance advertising campaign run across London’s transport system, ultimately regulated by Khan, featured provocative imagery and religious overtones, prompting accusations that public space was being used to promote a particular faith’s commercial ecosystem.
The truth is people might be less concerned about religious adverts from other faiths which they perceive as less aggressively set on conquest and conversion — an uncomfortable but worthwhile thought to keep in mind. London along with other major UK cities has also seen numerous intimidating street protests where Muslim men have worshipped in the street, paraded terrorist flags, and even burnt a car whilst holding a Quran aloft on top of a police van (in Leeds last week).
This current climate matters. And these perceptions, however incomplete or distorted, matter. They cannot simply be dismissed as racist or xenophobic, and doing so is counterproductive. The fear many Jews feel in New York today is not an invention either. It is not merely a media creation. It is based on real experiences, real statements, and a broader climate in which antisemitism is often recast as political critique. But nor should these concerns be weaponized with reckless rhetoric. We have seen in Britain how public discourse can descend into paranoia when criticism is expressed in conspiratorial or racially charged terms. If critics of Mamdani wish to be heard, they must be precise, restrained, and grounded. Otherwise, they will be shouted down by the very people they hope to persuade.
Khan himself has sometimes contributed to the perception of grievance politics. In April 2024, he apologized to Britain’s Chief Rabbi for implying that criticism of his position on Gaza was influenced by his Muslim-sounding name. He admitted that he felt held to a different standard due to his faith, but accepted that his comment was unfair. There is a broad unease about how religion, ethnicity, and political critique intersect in public life, and pretending otherwise will not help allay people’s fears.
What happens next in New York is impossible to predict. As in London, the city’s institutional constraints, budgetary realities, and legal frameworks will limit how much any mayor can reshape it. But politics is not just about budgets or buses. It is about the values a city embodies, the identities it elevates, and the signals it sends to its people. In electing Mamdani, New Yorkers have made a powerful statement. Whether that statement fosters solidarity or division will depend on how he governs, and how his critics respond.
London may offer some lessons, but it is not a template. The United States and the United Kingdom differ in their histories, their social structures, and their ideological battle lines. Still, both countries are wrestling with similar questions: What happens when the politics of social justice collide with the politics of ethnic identity? Can a city led by a figure deeply polarizing to one community still represent the whole?
We do not yet know how this story will unfold. But we should pay close attention. New York is not just another city. It is, in many ways, the stage on which the future of liberal democracy will be tested. And its new mayor stands at the very center of that test.
Jonathan Sacerdoti, a writer and broadcaster, is now a contributor to The Algemeiner.
Uncategorized
Fifty Years After ‘Zionism Is Racism’ Resolution, UN Committees Still Push Anti-Israel Agenda, Experts Warn
The United Nations headquarters building is pictured though a window with the UN logo in the foreground in the Manhattan borough of New York, Aug. 15, 2014. Photo: REUTERS/Carlo Allegri
Fifty years after the United Nations labeled Zionism as a form of racism, experts warn that the organization’s operations and committees continue to reflect the same entrenched anti-Israel mindset.
“There’s been a long-standing demonization of Israel and an entrenched anti-Zionist infrastructure within the UN,” Ben Cohen, a senior analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), a Washington, DC-based think tank, told The Algemeiner.
“In some UN bodies, Israel continues to be portrayed as a colonial and racist entity,” he said. “This isn’t about Israel’s policies or actions, but about a broader narrative and institutional bias.”
In November 1975, the UN General Assembly passed Resolution 3379, which equated Zionism — the national movement of the Jewish people to reestablish a state in their ancient homeland — with “racism,” reflecting long-standing antisemitic stereotypes and anti-Israel agendas.
In a new FDD report released last month, Cohen argues that the UN Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (CEIRPP), established under the 1975 resolution, remains one of the clearest examples of the UN’s institutional bias against Israel.
Even though that resolution was ultimately overturned in 1991, the study shows how CEIRPP has continued to promote the same anti-Israel ideology.
According to Cohen, Resolution 3379 was an attack on Israel’s right to exist, empowering UN committees and agencies to adopt its anti-Zionist themes in their work on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
“All these tropes are key components of the global legal and political assault on Israel, unprecedented in scale, that unfolded after the Hamas atrocities of Oct. 7, 2023,” the report says, referring to the global hostility toward Israel that followed the Palestinian terrorist group’s invasion of and massacre across southern Israeli communities.
“For the past half-century, [CEIRPP] has worked to delegitimize the State of Israel by amplifying Palestinian efforts to depict the Jewish state as a ‘colonial’ and ‘apartheid’ regime,” it continues.
The newly released study also argues that the UN has violated the principle of sovereign equality of all its members for years, giving Palestinians a dedicated platform while Israel is the only member state to face such a relentless campaign.
“The UN has long acted as a willing partner with the Arab world in keeping Palestinian refugees in that status for generations,” Cohen told The Algemeiner.
As one of the UN’s main anti-Israel bodies, CEIRPP receives $3.1 million annually to support its programs and operations, according to a 2024 UN report.
Gil Kapen, executive director of the American Jewish International Relations Institute (AJIRI), explained that the UN provides little clarity on the activities of certain departments or how their funding is allocated, pointing to a troubling lack of transparency.
“In many ways, these offices are even more egregious — they are nothing more than pure propaganda, promoting the most extreme version of the Palestinian narrative: that Israel has no right to exist,” Kapen told The Algemeiner.
“We don’t believe Israel should be immune from criticism, but creating an entire institution solely to target Israel — something that doesn’t exist for any other country — is both problematic and destructive,” he continued, noting that such efforts undermine international attempts to uphold the current ceasefire with Hamas and bring a lasting end to the war in Gaza.
FDD’s study argues the committee should be dismantled, calling on Washington to lead the effort, encourage member states to withdraw, and prevent additional funds from being allocated to its work.
“As the largest donor to the United Nations by far, the United States possesses tremendous leverage, especially at a time when the [UN] faces a massive financial crisis due to the pause in US contributions,” the report says.
“By insisting on a ‘zero tolerance’ policy for one-sided and unique anti-Israel institutions, Washington can absolutely refuse to grant consensus for any budget that includes funding for these bodies,” it continues
Officially, CEIRPP operates across five main areas: promoting Palestinian self-determination, advocating for an “immediate end” to Israel’s control of territories captured in the 1967 war, mobilizing international support, coordinating with UN bodies on the Palestinian question, and engaging civil society organizations and parliamentarians to advance the Palestinian cause.
“While the committee does not directly impact the foreign policy of member states, it influences policy discussions and provides anti-Zionist NGOs with access to UN diplomats, staff, and financial resources,” FDD’s report says.
In practice, CEIRPP “promotes the Palestinian narrative and uses UN funds to act as another pro-Palestinian UN body.”
For example, the committee designated Nov. 29 — the anniversary of the 1947 UN vote to partition what was then British-administered territory into one Arab and one Jewish state — as the “International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People.”
“But this day has grown each year into an increasingly prominent platform for anti-Israel rhetoric, featuring speakers who compare Israel to Nazi Germany or call for a ‘Free Palestine from the river to the sea,’” the study explains.
“From the river to the sea, Palestine shall be free” is a popular slogan among anti-Israel activists that has been widely interpreted as a genocidal call for the destruction of the Jewish state, which is located between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.
Editor’s note: Ben Cohen previously worked as a seniro correspondent for The Algemeiner, covering international affairs and issues concerning the Jewish diaspora.
Uncategorized
Resignations Continue From Heritage Foundation’s Antisemitism Task Force Amid Carlson-Fuentes Controversy
Tucker Carlson speaks at Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana, Oct. 21, 2025. Photo: Gage Skidmore/ZUMA Press Wire via Reuters Connect
The Heritage Foundation, a prominent think tank that has been at the center of US conservative politics for decades, is continuing to receive intense backlash over President Kevin Roberts’ refusal to condemn his friend and right-wing podcaster Tucker Carlson’s platforming of neo-Nazi commentator Nick Fuentes in a recent two-hour long interview.
Two members of the Heritage Foundation’s National Task Force to Combat Antisemitism resigned this week while one suspended its participation.
Ian Speir, an attorney at Covenant Law and fellow at the Religious Freedom Institute, announced Tuesday on X that he had resigned from the group.
Rabbi Yaakov Menken, the executive vice President of the Coalition for Jewish Values, made the same decision, sharing a letter announcing the choice with the Washington Free Beacon.
Arie Lipnick, a member of the Board of Governors for the Combat Antisemitism Movement (CAM), sent a letter to Roberts suspending further participation with Heritage pending a meeting with him.
“I cannot in good conscience stand with Heritage or continue on the task force under its current auspices,” Speir said in his resignation letter, which he shared on social media. “I have great respect for all of you, and I consider many of you personal friends. And at the urging of the co-chairs, I was prepared to defer this decision at least until we could get important questions answered about the future of Heritage and the conservative movement. But then Roberts made his statement at Hillsdale last night.”
On Monday, Roberts stated in a speech at Hillsdale College that he had made a “mistake.”
“Sometimes you can make a mistake with the best of intentions,” Roberts said, adding that “my mistake was not saying that we’re not going to participate in cancel culture — we’re not. My mistake was letting that, which we will never backtrack from, override the central motivation that I had in doing that.”
In his resignation letter, Speir described Roberts’ remarks as “strategic non-apology that doubles down on ‘loyalty’ to Tucker Carlson, muses about welcoming groypers and the groyper-curious into the movement, and continues to gaslight everyone about ‘cancelation’ when that clearly isn’t the issue.”
Groypers are part of a loose network of white nationalists and internet trolls who adhere to the racist and antisemitic views of Fuentes, who claims he seeks to preserve the white, European identity and culture of the US.
“It is the elevation of blind loyalty and a thirst for power above principle — the very opposite of historical American conservatism,” Speir wrote. “I cannot tread this path with you. The stakes for our country and for our Jewish friends are simply too high, too existential. I welcome efforts, already underway, to reconstitute some part of this auspicious group and continue the important work of stewarding our American freedoms, combating antisemitism, and renewing the great Judeo-Christian spirit of our civilization.”
Menken’s letter began in anguish: “It is with pain and regret that I tender the resignation of the Coalition for Jewish Values (CJV) from the National Task Force to Combat Antisemitism (NTFCA). We cannot grant legitimacy to an effort to combat antisemitism operated by the Heritage Foundation while Heritage is validating antisemitism and giving it a platform.”
CJV explained the incompatibility of Carlson’s anti-Israel rhetoric and promotion of antisemitic conspiracy theories with the goals of the task force.
“When Carlson welcomes guests and reposts content calling Israel’s effort to subdue Hamas and rescue hostages a ‘genocide,’ he makes himself an integral part of the Hamas Support Network that Project Esther aims to fight,” Menken said. “So, it is not that we are leaving the NTFCA as much as that Mr. Roberts has declared that Heritage itself threatens to scuttle the NTFCA’s efforts.”
In CAM’s letter to Roberts, Lipnick wrote that the group “requests an immediate meeting with you to discuss our ongoing relationship with the Heritage Foundation. Until such time, CAM is suspending our participation as a member of the National Task Force to Combat Antisemitism, a project of the Heritage Foundation.”
Lipnick noted that CAM defended Carlson’s constitutionally protected right to feature Fuentes on his X podcast, and that “indeed, Mr. Carlson has the right to practice antisemitism himself — a right he appears to have greedily exercised in recent years.”
Lipnick described how CAM likewise possesses “the right to criticize Mr. Carlson for eagerly nodding along with comments that channel the literature of the Third Reich, for challenging the First Amendment rights of Christian Americans to practice their faith and for labeling them ‘heretics,’ and not least for allowing his show to become a welcome home for America’s adversaries.”
CAM saw Roberts’ Hillsdale speech as failing to correct the damage done from his previous advocacy of Carlson.
“Given the opportunity to apologize and retract your comments criticizing ‘a venomous coalition of globalists,’ ‘the globalist class,’ and ‘their mouthpieces in Washington,’ comments that feed into the very antisemitic tropes you claim to ‘abhor,’ your speech at Hillsdale College yesterday fell well short of the mark,” Lipnick wrote. “Taken together with your defense of Mr. Carlson’s decision to treat Holocaust denial as legitimate political discourse begs the question of whether Holocaust survivors, their families, and the American Jewish community at large have a home at Heritage.”
The letter from CAM to Roberts concluded, “Frankly, your comments leave us skeptical of whether the Heritage Foundation has the necessary moral leadership to house the Task Force to Combat Antisemitism.”
CJV ended its correspondence with the terms for its continued collaboration with Heritage.
“CJV cannot, in good conscience, remain affiliated with an institution that normalizes or excuses antisemitism under the guise of political commentary or free speech. The moral clarity required to fight Jew-hatred cannot coexist with public expressions of support for those who amplify it,” Menken wrote. “Until such time as there is a complete reversal of Mr. Roberts’ position, or, alternatively, his resignation is accepted by the Heritage Board of Directors, CJV cannot be part of a program, event, or effort claiming to combat antisemitism in which the Heritage Foundation is a sponsoring partner.”
The resignations began last week. On Sunday, Mark Goldfeder, CEO of the National Jewish Advocacy Center and an Orthodox rabbi, posted his own letter of resignation on X.
Uncategorized
Yesh Atid quits World Zionist Organization, citing corruption and political cronyism
In an unprecedented rebuke, Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid announced Wednesday that his centrist Yesh Atid party is withdrawing from the World Zionist Organization, accusing the 127-year-old quasi-governmental institution of being mired in corruption and political patronage.
Saying that corruption was pushing Diaspora Jews away from Israel, he also said he would push to nationalize Keren Kayemeth LeIsrael–Jewish National Fund, which controls over 13% of Israel’s land.
The move derailed weeks of delicate coalition talks at the World Zionist Congress, a global gathering in Jerusalem that happens once every five years, where delegates from around the world had been negotiating a power-sharing deal between Israel’s political parties and major Diaspora Jewish groups.
Under a draft agreement, Yesh Atid lawmaker Meir Cohen was expected to chair the KKL-JNF, but those plans collapsed after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s son, Yair, was reportedly offered a senior position at the WZO — a step that Lapid blasted as emblematic of nepotism and “a system to arrange jobs for the Netanyahu family.”
Lapid said his party would refuse all positions and funding tied to the Zionist institutions.
“We wanted to clean the National Institutions of the culture of corruption and political appointments — but it’s not possible. There’s no way to do it, and no one to do it with,” he said in a video statement.
Instead, Yesh Atid will introduce legislation to bring the KKL-JNF under state control, subjecting it to public audit and transparency laws.
A Yesh Atid spokesperson told eJewishPhilanthropy that the decision followed growing frustration over patronage and waste. “Every stone you pick up and look under, there’s more budgets, more jobs, more things you can’t explain,” the spokesperson said. “It’s all ridiculous.”
The World Zionist Organization, the Jewish Agency, KKL-JNF, and Keren Hayesod together oversee billions in assets and programs in Israel and abroad. Though nominally nonpartisan, they have long operated through political coalitions reflecting the Knesset. Lapid’s withdrawal throws the current round of appointments into turmoil, with no clear path to new leadership.
Lapid insisted his criticism was directed at institutional corruption, not the Diaspora Jews represented within them.
“They understand exactly what’s going on in these institutions. It pushes them even further away from the State of Israel and from Zionism,” he said. “We will fight it, not join it.”
—
The post Yesh Atid quits World Zionist Organization, citing corruption and political cronyism appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.