Uncategorized
Fearless or foolish? Michael Roth, Wesleyan’s Jewish president, stands apart in opposing Trump’s campus policies
As he often does these days, Wesleyan University president Michael Roth recently delivered a lecture on another campus outlining all the reasons why academia should be more forcefully standing up to President Trump’s policies.
He peppered the lecture with Yiddish words. He laid thick on what he called his “Jewish accent.” A colleague came up to him afterwards.
“You’re doing Jew-speak,” they told him.
Roth laughed recalling his response: “No s–t, Sherlock. That’s part of what I’m doing.”
What he’s doing, Roth told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency in a recent interview, is constantly reminding his potential critics who he is. For one, he’s the only university president in the country who openly, repeatedly rejects Trump’s claims that the administration’s campus crackdowns — rescinding grants, limiting international student visas, dismantling “DEI” — are a means of fighting antisemitism after the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel.
For another, when his own school dealt with pro-Palestinian encampments last year, he made no secret of handling the matter diplomatically instead of through discipline — an approach that landed other university presidents in hot water, but not him.
And above all that, he’s proudly Jewish.
“If you’re going to accuse Wesleyan’s administration of being antisemitic, start with me. But don’t call me on Saturday,” Roth quipped. “Because I’m going to be in Torah study.”
Roth isn’t quite sure how he, the leader of a small-town Connecticut liberal arts school with a mere 3,000 students, became so unusual among his profession by defending what he sees as the central principles of academic freedom.
“It’s a bit of a puzzle,” he told JTA. “I don’t think my view is very original. Any of the presidents I know at different schools probably have similar views.” His views also seem to align with most American Jews, at least according to polls, which show that nearly three-quarters of them also believe Trump is using antisemitism as an excuse to attack higher education.
In recent days, two other Jewish presidents, at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Brown University, have publicly rejected a Trump administration offer of “priority” funding that would have required them to bar some forms of speech, making them the only university leaders to do so. But Roth still stands out in the lengths he is going to rebuff Trump’s higher education policies — and to center his Jewish identity in doing so.
There he is, accepting a “courage award” from the literary free-speech group PEN America “for standing up to government assaults on higher education.” There he is, giving interviews in which he lambasts “prominent Jewish figures around the country who get comfortable with Trump, it seems to me, because they can say he’s fighting antisemitism: ‘He’s good for the Jews.’ It’s pathetic. It’s a travesty of Jewish values, in my view.”
There he is, signing an open letter declaring that antisemitism “is being used as a pretext to abrogate students’ rights to free speech, and to deport non-citizen students.” The leaders of Jewish Voice for Peace, an anti-Zionist group that has been suspended from multiple college campuses for disruptive protests, were on that letter. So was the leader of Wesleyan University.
And there he is, telling JTA that so-called institutional neutrality positions, adopted by a range of universities amid the Israel-Gaza war (and supported by the Jewish campus group Hillel International), are “bogus.”
Pro-Palestinian encampments at Wesleyan University in Middletown, Connecticut, May 9, 2024. (Screenshot)
A representative for the American Association of University Professors, a faculty union that has dropped its former opposition to boycotting Israel, praised Roth’s presence on the national stage.
“Michael Roth is criticizing the misuse of Title VI to define anti-semitism as criticism of Israel and its weaponization in the campaign to attack higher education. There is nothing startling about that position,” Joan W. Scott, a Jewish researcher at the Institute for Advanced Study who sits on the union’s academic freedom committee, told JTA.
Scott added, “I’d say Roth’s reasons for his courageous stance have to do with his integrity and perhaps his knowledge of history. He doesn’t want to be among those who, like Heidegger, thought that appeasing the regime in power was a safe position to take.” (A spokesperson for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a campus free-speech advocacy group that supports institutional neutrality, declined to comment on Roth.)
Roth’s profile has caught the attention of some Jewish families, including that of Mason Weisz of White Plains, New York, who said Roth was one reason that his son is a first-year at Wesleyan now. Weisz recalled hearing an NPR interview with Roth in April, after admissions decisions were out but before seniors had to pick their schools, as particularly pivotal.
The interview “in which he argues that Trump’s use of antisemitism to justify his strong-arming of universities actually is bad for the Jews, encapsulates everything I appreciated about Roth.” Weisz told JTA. “Here is a university president who is willing to risk going on record against the administration, again and again, to fight for academic integrity. He has a nuanced view of world events, an appreciation for true debate, and a fearlessness that I hope are an inspiration for Wesleyan’s faculty and students.”
Roth also earns good marks from some Jewish students on campus.
“He does care about Jewish students. He’s someone who does take their concerns seriously. And compared to other university presidents, he’s been better,” said Blake Fox, a Jewish senior at Wesleyan who identifies as pro-Israel and serves on the campus Chabad board. “He wants to be the ‘cool’ president.”
Fox says he had a good experience as a Jew at Wesleyan, in part because the encampments there never felt threatening (he noted the protest movement was much smaller at Wesleyan than it was at other schools). That was due, at least in part, to Roth’s efforts to peacefully negotiate an end to the encampments.
Yet, Fox said, the president — whom he’s met several times — was also deeply concerned for the well-being of Jewish students. In meetings with Fox and other Jews on campus, Roth vowed to take action if any protesters ever threatened a Jewish student by name.
He also appreciated Roth standing up to Trump, particularly on issues of campus speech. “I’m pro-Israel, but I also support the First Amendment,” Fox said. “Even if there are individuals whose speech is bad, targeting them for deportation is a dangerous precedent, I think.”
The campus of Wesleyan University, July 24, 2013.(Joe Mabel via Creative Commons)
Though a historically Methodist school, Wesleyan today has no religious affiliation and enrolls around 600 Jewish students — nearly 20% of the student body. There’s no Hillel, but the school’s Jewish community includes a full-time rabbi, student leadership, dedicated Jewish residential housing, and a unique, modern sukkah that has won architecture awards. The Wesleyan Jewish Community rabbi declined to comment for this story.
There’s also a Chabad outpost, which opened in 2011. Its director, Rabbi Levi Schectman, told JTA he was “grateful for the open door to the President’s office and for the strides that have been made so far,” adding, “There is still more work to be done so that all students feel heard and safe.”
Schectman also said the Wesleyan Jewish community he interacts with is “living and thriving”: A recent “Mega Shabbat” gathering drew what he said was a center record attendance of 175 students.
And then, of course, there’s Roth, the school’s first Jewish president, who has held the post since 2007. A free-speech scholar, he’s published books about the campus environment, including one called “Safe Enough Spaces.” He grew up in a Reform household on Long Island and has written essays on Jewish identity, but considered himself “only modestly observant” until his father died 25 years ago. After that point, he said, he “began saying Kaddish and subsequently attending Torah study.”
Nowadays Roth makes a point of involving himself in Jewish campus life — all forms of it. He spent Rosh Hashanah with the affiliated Jewish community, and, last year, caught a Shabbat service held at the pro-Palestinian student encampments.
The latter group wasn’t too thrilled to see him there, he recalled; they’d been targeting him by name, often in insulting language. But he wanted to learn more about the Jews who were participating in the protests right outside his office. When one of them, an Israeli, personally apologized to Roth for the aggressive behavior of other encampment participants, he invited the student to his office and they had a long chat. “There were so many interesting conversations,” he said.
Michael Schill, President of Northwestern University, testifies at a hearing called “Calling for Accountability: Stopping Antisemitic College Chaos” before the House Committee on Education and the Workforce on Capitol Hill on May 23, 2024 in Washington, DC. University leaders are being asked to testify by House Republicans about how colleges have responded to pro-Palestinian protests and allegations of antisemitism on their campuses. (Michael A. McCoy/Getty Images)
Of course, many Jews in academia know that merely being Jewish cannot protect oneself from charges of enabling antisemitism. It didn’t save Northwestern University president Michael Schill, who — like Roth — is a free-speech scholar who tried to deal with his school’s encampments through negotiation instead of by force.
In so doing, Schill was hauled before Congress and lost the confidence of many of his Jewish faculty, staff and alums. The heads of the Anti-Defamation League and Jewish Federations of North America, both Northwestern alums, publicly aligned against him. Last month, Schill announced he was stepping down.
Roth doesn’t know Schill personally, but said he thought it was “just terrible” he had resigned. “I found it very sad that the board didn’t come to his defense in a way that allowed him to continue,” Roth said.
He acknowledges he’s in a better position to speak out than the heads of other universities, where hospitals and major research centers are more reliant on federal funding, and where instances of antisemitism had been more prevalent pre-Trump.
Schools like Columbia have made significant concessions to Trump, including on antisemitism issues, in exchange for having their funding restored. Harvard, after initially putting up resistance to Trump’s demands, has now reportedly entered a negotiation phase; the University of California system has also been targeted for a $1 billion payout to the government. Last week, the Trump administration unveiled what it said was a new “compact” that schools would be required to sign to secure their federal funding; the demands include one to protect conservative viewpoints on campus.
Is Roth worried that Trump could turn on Wesleyan next?
“Didn’t I say I was Jewish?” he responded, laughing. “Am I worried? Of course I’m worried. I’m a worrier… I would hate to put Wesleyan at risk.” But, he said, that wouldn’t stop him. “I have three grandchildren. I want them to grow up in a country where they don’t have to be brave to speak up.”
Now, as the two-year anniversary of Oct. 7 nears, Roth’s name is also on some things other Jewish leaders wouldn’t touch.
He spoke to JTA while on the road to a literary festival in Lenox, Massachusetts, co-sponsored by the left-wing magazine Jewish Currents, which has emerged as one of the loudest voices in Judaism to oppose both Israel and communal American Jewish support for it. He would be appearing onstage with the journalist M. Gessen, who has compared Israel’s actions in Gaza to Nazi Germany.
Roth told JTA he hadn’t known that Jewish Currents was a co-sponsor when he agreed to take part in the festival. But, he added, it wouldn’t have changed anything about his appearance. He’ll talk to anybody Jewish. He’s appeared on their editor Peter Beinart’s podcast, and a while back he submitted a piece to the magazine that was rejected (“I guess it was insufficiently anti-Israel,” he mused) and wound up running in the Forward instead.
He sees his own views on Israel as moderate. While he called for a ceasefire in March 2024, far earlier than many others in the Jewish world, he still refuses to call the Gaza war a genocide and remains adamant he supports “Israel’s right to exist.” He only blames Israel for what he said were the security failures that led to the Oct. 7 attack, which he had condemned immediately as “sickening.”
He takes Israel’s wartime behavior to task for “paving a path for egregious war crimes and a level of brutality and inhumanity that I never would have associated with the country.” Yet he remains “stunned,” even today, by what he called “the lack of basic sympathy, empathy, for the victims of those horrific murders” of Oct. 7.
“I pride myself on being realistic about the persistence of antisemitism,” he said. “Still, the callousness with which some people greeted those horrors was very disturbing.”
Yet when the encampments came for Wesleyan last spring, and some of their participants accused him directly of being complicit in genocide, Roth — unlike nearly every other university president — opted to negotiate with them. He wrote a piece in the New Republic declaring that he would not call the police, even though he knew the protesters to be in violation of some campus policies.
Even in that piece, he offered an ominous prediction: “My fear is that such protests (especially when they turn violent) in the end will help the reactionary forces of populist authoritarianism.”
Roth didn’t like many of the phrases his own campus protesters used, including “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” Yet he forcefully defended their right to say it, angering some Jews on campus as a result.
“I try to have it both ways,” he said — weighing his principled views on both Israel and protest. This can sometimes lead to very intricate needle-threading. He recalled how, when an address he gave to prospective students was disrupted by pro-Palestinian protesters unfolding a banner, he let them continue and even acknowledged the banner before pressing ahead.
Fox does take issue with some of Roth’s stances, including his opposition to institutional neutrality.
“I think he fundamentally misunderstands what institutional neutrality is,” Fox said. “We don’t need to hear your views on Ukraine. We don’t need to hear your views on Israel.” Having the school president call for a ceasefire, he thought, is “alienating both sides of campus.”
More significantly for his job, Roth has long opposed the movement to boycott and divest from Israel. This has angered activists at Wesleyan, who, like those at other schools, have made divestment a central demand.
Last spring, in order to peacefully break up his school’s encampment movement, Roth had promised protest leaders they could make a case to the board for divestment that fall. When the board opted not to divest, a small number of protesters became angry and attempted to take over a university building.
“They were not very civil to my staff members,” Roth recalled, describing the protesters as basically daring him to take action.
That time, he did call the cops.
—
The post Fearless or foolish? Michael Roth, Wesleyan’s Jewish president, stands apart in opposing Trump’s campus policies appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
ADL launches ‘Mamdani monitor’ as Jewish groups retool for post-election advocacy
As New York City woke up to a new mayor-elect on Wednesday, Jewish groups that spurned Zohran Mamdani faced a decision — how to react to a leader whose staunch criticism of Israel flew in the face of their core beliefs.
Their first responses ranged from despondent to optimistic, with aims from seeking unity to staging a battlefield.
Jonathan Greenblatt, the Anti-Defamation League chief who railed against Mamdani throughout the race, convened a briefing on Wednesday to discuss grappling with the new administration. He announced a “Mamdani Monitor,” a public tracker of Mamdani’s policies and personnel appointments that the ADL viewed as threatening Jewish security.
“We’re deeply concerned about what the next four years could augur for Jewish New Yorkers — the antisemitic language that he has promoted, the antisemitic policies that he’s championed, the antisemitic extremists who he’s known to affiliate with,” Greenblatt said.
Greenblatt cited Mamdani’s support for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement against Israel and past rhetoric about the Israeli army as evidence that “this mayor will not have our backs.” Under Greenblatt’s leadership, the ADL has narrowed its civil rights mission to focus on combating antisemitism and anti-Zionism.
Mamdani crested to victory as the city’s first Muslim mayor without a majority of Jewish voters, who have split over his staunch criticism of Israel. Early exit polls from CNN indicate that he won just over 50% of voters but only 33% of Jewish voters, while his pro-Israel opponent Andrew Cuomo won nearly twice as many, at 63%.
Greenblatt said the ADL was closely watching Mamdani with a list of demands. Those included no appointments of people with records of antisemitism, NYPD protection for synagogues and Jewish day schools, and “factual, unbiased education about the Middle East” in schools. He also said it was “very important” to maintain NYPD partnerships with Israeli counterintelligence and counterterrorism efforts.
Hindy Poupko, the chief strategy officer at UJA-Federation of New York, also said her organization was preparing to combat potential Mamdani policies that aligned with BDS. She said that UJA hoped to lobby for broadening a state-level anti-BDS order, passed by Cuomo as governor, so that it would apply to New York City.
“We need to expand that Cuomo executive order to cover City Hall, because it would be devastating on many fronts — not to mention economically devastating for New Yorkers — if the Mamdani administration engaged in any kind of BDS activity,” said Poupko.
Asked if they would meet with Mamdani, both Greenblatt and Poupko gave qualified answers.
“I will not meet him on my own,” said Greenblatt. “I think we have a responsibility to our fellowship as Jews. I’m not going to do that meeting without UJA. I’m not going to do that meeting without some spiritual leadership as well.”
Poupko said, “The ball’s in his court.” If Mamdani took actions to “put Jewish New Yorkers at ease,” then she said UJA leaders would meet him.
Mamdani was asked about Greenblatt’s proposed “Mamdani Monitor” in a press conference on Wednesday.
“I think that anyone is free to catalog the actions of our administration,” he answered. “I have some doubts in Jonathan’s ability to do so honestly, given that he previously said I had not visited any synagogues, only to have to correct himself.”
Greenblatt incorrectly stated that Mamdani had not visited “a single synagogue” during a CNBC interview in August. He later said he meant that Mamdani had not visited any synagogues since the June primary.
The ADL and UJA were not alone in mourning Mamdani’s victory. The New York Board of Rabbis and other leading Jewish institutions in the city said in a joint statement, “We cannot ignore that the Mayor-elect holds core beliefs fundamentally at odds with our community’s deepest convictions and most cherished values.” They added that they would continue to work with every level of government.
Rabbi Marc Schneier, who heads The Hampton Synagogue on Long Island and backed Cuomo, said he planned to establish the first Jewish day school in the Hamptons as a haven for “thousands of Jewish families” fleeing “the antisemitic climate of Mamdani’s New York City.”
Meanwhile, the Republican Jewish Coalition called Mamdani’s victory “a deeply distressing result for New Yorkers, particularly Jewish New Yorkers,” and accused his entire party of condoning antisemitism. “There is only ONE party in this country fighting antisemitism and supporting Israel, and it is the Republican Party,” said the coalition.
Other past critics of Mamdani seemed ready to put the election behind them. The pro-Israel billionaire Bill Ackman, whose prolific and protracted attacks on Mamdani during the campaign often predicted an apocalyptic city under his leadership, appeared to offer an olive branch just hours after predicting Cuomo would prevail.
“Congrats on the win,” Ackman said to Mamdani on X. “Now you have a big responsibility. If I can help NYC, just let me know what I can do.”
Some voices emphasized mending the divisions that roiled Jewish communities throughout the race. The Union for Reform Judaism, which urged its rabbis not to endorse candidates despite intense pressure from congregants, pressed Jews to “help lower the temperature, listen generously, and take steps to promote healing” in the aftermath of the election.
“Reasonable people across the political spectrum — and across the Jewish community — must aspire to respectfully disagree, and we will do our part to bring people together without erasing real differences,” the group said. They added that they welcomed cooperation with Mamdani and would hold him accountable to “his commitments to protect Jewish communities and all New Yorkers.”
Noting that City Hall does not have a foreign policy, the organization said it would “not hesitate to push back if anti-Israel policies or rhetoric make Jewish New Yorkers who are deeply attached to Israel more anxious and less safe.”
Other Jewish leaders are looking toward a future under Mamdani not with dismay or caution, but with jubilation. Activists from left-wing groups like Jewish Voice for Peace and Jews for Racial and Economic Justice, which have bolstered Mamdani’s rise to power, celebrated the victory at his watch party on Tuesday night. Several people there told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency they would finally have an ally in City Hall who aligned with their views on issues from income inequality to Palestinian rights.
Rabbi Lauren Grabelle Herrmann, who leads the SAJ synagogue on the Upper West Side, urged congregants with wide-ranging reactions to the election to keep in mind their shared hopes for the well-being of all Jews and New Yorkers.
She quoted the prophet Jeremiah, writing, “Seek the welfare of the city to which I have exiled you and pray to God on its behalf; for in its prosperity you shall prosper.”
—
The post ADL launches ‘Mamdani monitor’ as Jewish groups retool for post-election advocacy appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Heritage Foundation staff confront president over antisemitism, defense of Tucker Carlson
The president of the Heritage Foundation, Kevin Roberts, apologized to his staff on Wednesday for his refusal to condemn Tucker Carlson after the right-wing broadcaster aired a friendly interview with white nationalist Nick Fuentes.
During a tense, two-hour all-hands meetings, staff members challenged Roberts’ leadership, questioned Heritage’s credibility, and warned that his stance had gravely damaged the foundation’s relationships with Jewish partners and donors
“I made a mistake and I let you down and I let down this institution. Period. Full stop,” Roberts said.
He specifically apologized for a previous comment defending Carlson in which he decried a “venomous coalition” attacking the commentator. The phrase, he said, was “a terrible choice of words, especially for our Jewish colleagues and friends.”
The meeting, audio and video of which were leaked online, laid bare deep divisions inside America’s most influential conservative think tank, torn between Roberts’ attempt to mend fences and a staff revolt from within its senior ranks.
Several Heritage employees, including longtime fellows and legal scholars, told Roberts they no longer had confidence in his leadership. Others said his refusal to draw moral lines between Carlson and antisemites like Fuentes had caused lasting reputational harm.
“I made the mess, I want to clean it up,” Roberts told employees, adding that he had offered his resignation to the board but felt a “moral obligation” to stay and repair the damage.
Several staffers demanded that Roberts publicly repudiate Carlson. Two called for him to resign.
“You have shown a stunning lack of both courage and judgment,” said Amy Swearer, a senior legal fellow who has worked at Heritage for eight years. “I stand here today with no ability to say I have confidence in your leadership.”
“It has become increasingly difficult to continue to defend the Heritage Foundation,” added Rachel Greszler, another senior fellow. “I do not believe that you are the right person to lead.”
The confrontation followed days of turmoil triggered by Roberts’ decision to post a video in which he said Heritage would not “distance” itself from Carlson despite his friendly interview with Fuentes, a Holocaust denier who has praised Adolf Hitler. Roberts framed his position as a defense of “grace” and “free speech,” saying the right should avoid “canceling” its own.
That message sparked outrage across the political spectrum. Prominent Republicans, including Sen. Ted Cruz, denounced Fuentes as a “Nazi.” Jewish organizations that had partnered with Heritage on its antisemitism initiative, Project Esther, cut ties. Conservative commentators such as Ben Shapiro blasted Roberts for embracing a “no enemies to the right” ethos.
One of the most emotional moments at the meeting came during comments from Daniel Flesch, a Jewish staffer with Heritage’s Allison Center for National Security, who oversees Project Esther. He described being unable to defend Heritage to Jewish allies and friends.
“It has been six days… where as an organization we have been unable to utter the words…‘Tucker’s an antisemite, and we as Heritage do not want to associate with him,’” Daniel said. “We are bleeding trust, reputation, perhaps donors.”
Robert Rector, a Heritage veteran of 47 years, invoked conservative icon William F. Buckley Jr., who in the 1960s sought to expel antisemitic and racist elements from the conservative movement.
“Buckley’s view was that we have to expunge all antisemitism from the movement and expel the lunatics,” Rector said. “This is what built the conservative movement. We are now reversing that.”
Hans von Spakovsky, another senior Heritage figure, warned Roberts that the think tank’s credibility could not be salvaged without a clean break from Carlson.
“The damage done to the reputation of Heritage is the worst I have ever seen,” von Spakovsky said. “If the Heritage Foundation and you do not dump Tucker Carlson publicly, we are not going to repair that damage.”
The meeting also exposed generational and ideological divides on the right. One young staffer argued that Heritage should not prioritize defending Israel and accused the leadership of promoting “Christian Zionism” — a comment that drew audible gasps.
Roberts and his deputies reaffirmed the foundation’s pro-Israel stance, but the exchange underscored how some younger conservatives, animated by online populism and isolationism, are challenging traditional right-wing support for Israel.
—
The post Heritage Foundation staff confront president over antisemitism, defense of Tucker Carlson appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
As Mamdani’s victory reverberates beyond NYC, Jews must choose solidarity over shock
The ascendance of Zohran Mamdani stunned many Jewish New Yorkers, and now that he has been elected, many Jews in New York and across the country feel fear and foreboding. The city that long stood as the beating heart of American Jewish life, creative, intellectual, and spiritual, has elected a man who denies the Jewish right to national self-determination, traffics in rhetoric that isolates our community, and aligns with movements hostile to Jewish safety and dignity.
This moment strikes a community already reeling from the Hamas attacks of Oct. 7, 2023, and the wave of antisemitism that followed. Mamdani was the encampment candidate, lifted by the same forces that turned American campuses into arenas of cruelty and open hatred of Jews. For many, the outcome feels like the city we built, enriched and defended turning its back on us.
But panic provides no preparation, and despair offers no strategy. The Jewish people endured darker nights than this one. We never surrendered. We stood together, protected one another, and built stronger than before.
Clarity must guide us now. We reject the divisive and bigoted politics that carried Mamdani to Gracie Mansion. In his brief career he has championed efforts to delegitimize and demonize Israel, entertained defunding New York institutions that support Israelis, leveled baseless accusations of grave abuses, rejected the IHRA definition of antisemitism, opposed ceremonial resolutions honoring the State of Israel, failed to join resolutions commemorating the Holocaust, and — perhaps most galling to many — refused to condemn the call to “globalize the intifada,” a slogan that glorifies violence against Jews.
These actions reveal conviction, and we harbor no illusions about engagement. A few softened remarks before victory cannot erase years of radical rhetoric and targeted hostility. Tactical moderation rarely if ever equals moral transformation.
Events in New York echo beyond the city. When the largest Jewish community in the Diaspora faces rhetorical and political assault, extremists everywhere take notice. The effects reach synagogues, schools, students, and families across the United States. This moment concerns more than one election; it defines the boundaries of decency in public life.
Criticism of Israeli policy belongs in democratic discourse. Demonization of Israel and excuses for violence against Jews do not. That inversion, condemning Israel while minimizing Hamas atrocities, reflects not a pursuit of justice but an obsession with Jews. The Jewish people know this story from centuries of repetition, and we recognize it instantly because we survived it before.
But we also know what needs to come next.
We will fortify our institutions. We will organize for communal safety. We will advocate relentlessly at the municipal, state and federal levels. We will strengthen alliances with leaders who refuse to equivocate about Jewish life. And we will secure resources, philanthropic and governmental, to protect our people and our future in this still-great city.
We proceed without illusions. Leadership demands moral seriousness. When the mayor’s office abandons that duty, others will step forward. Jewish safety, dignity and continuity depend on our resolve, not on the goodwill of any administration.
New York stands as a city of Jewish strength, energy and resilience. That truth will not change. In this difficult hour, we choose solidarity over shock, courage over resignation, and resolve over naïveté. We lift one another up, safeguard our community, and affirm that our story never belonged to those who stand against us.
Let us not mourn, but organize.
—
The post As Mamdani’s victory reverberates beyond NYC, Jews must choose solidarity over shock appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.