Uncategorized
I won’t vote for Democrats who backed Mamdani. I know I’m not the only one.
There must be consequences when politicians endorse and campaign for unpalatable candidates for public office in order to court that candidate’s political base. I am just one voter, but I am ready to commit to issuing some.
I am a lifelong Democrat and consider myself a centrist liberal on most issues. The last times I recall voting for a Republican were in 1992 — 33 years ago! — when I supported Bill Green in his unsuccessful campaign for reelection as the U.S. representative from New York City’s largely Upper East Side congressional district, and then in 2001 when I voted for Mike Bloomberg for mayor of New York City.
But, like many other centrist Democrats, I have been watching with ever-increasing concern as the party I once considered my political home has moved further and further away to the left — indeed, often to the extremist far-left — on an issue I care about deeply.
The fundamental right of the State of Israel to exist — its geopolitical and moral legitimacy, as it were — is one such pivotal issue. Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Mario and Andrew Cuomo, Chuck Schumer, and Kirsten Gillibrand all identified and identify as supporters of Israel even while they may have criticized particular policies of one Israeli government or other.
This is not true of Zohran Mamdani. The Democratic candidate for mayor of New York City is a declared and uncompromising anti-Zionist. He comes by his inflexible antagonism toward the Jewish homeland honestly — his father, Mahmood Mamdani, Columbia University’s Herbert Lehman professor of government, has demanded for years that Israel divest its endowment from companies that invest in Israel, and his mother, filmmaker Mira Nair, pointedly refuses to attend Israeli film festivals.
Zohran Mamdani considers the likes of the anti-Zionist academics Edward Said and Rashid Khalidi as his intellectual mentors. While at college, he founded the Bowdoin chapter of the radical Students for Justice in Palestine.
All this is known. Mamdani never made a secret of his hatred of — as opposed to disagreement, even harsh disagreement, with — Israel and Zionism. As a result, he engages in some of the most extreme, bordering on the absurd, antisemitic conspiracy theories imaginable. In 2023, we learned this week, he told a far-left group that alleged violence on the part of New York police officers is somehow masterminded by the Israel armed forces: “We have to make clear that when the boot of the NYPD is on your neck, it’s been laced by the IDF.”
If ever there was a clear incitement to antisemitic violence, violence against Jews, this is it. And yet a host of prominent New York Democrats, rather than distancing themselves from if not affirmatively repudiating Mamdani, have not only endorsed him but are actively campaigning for him.
Among this lot are New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, State Attorney General Letitia James, U.S. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, and State Sen. Liz Krueger. All of them purport to be appalled by the surging antisemitism around them, and yet they stand by their candidate.
Mamdani claims not to be antisemitic, only pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel, and his above-listed supporters assist him in threading this particular noxious needle.
I’m not the first Jewish voice to say they’re attempting an impossible task. “Mamdani’s distinction between accepting Jews and denying a Jewish state is not merely a rhetorical sleight of hand or political naivete — though it is, to be clear, both of these,” warned Rabbi Elliot Cosgrove in his courageous sermon. “He is doing so to traffic in the most dangerous of tropes, an anti-Zionist rhetoric.”
But I might be the first Jewish voice to say publicly that I will never again cast a vote for any of the Democrats who have endorsed Mamdani. For me, at least, his supporters have crossed a moral and ideological Rubicon, and they have forced me, with not inconsiderable trepidation and reluctance, to do the same.
While Nadler, who announced that he will not seek reelection in 2026, is a lame duck, many of Mamdani’s other acolytes appear to still want to have a political future beyond Nov. 4. I will not countenance that.
Politicians by definition tend to make strategic decisions they deem to be in their self-interest. The more high-minded, not to say ethical, ones among them draw the line when it comes to issues of principle. More likely, or perhaps, more frequently, they will balance competing considerations and opt for what they consider to be their most advantageous pragmatic option.
It’s true that supporting Mamdani may seem like a rational, if not especially ethical, choice. Numerous polls have shown that support for Israel has diminished, especially among younger voters. Thus, the cynical calculation behind some of the Mamdani endorsements may well have been that the future support of such anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian voters would more than make up for any loss of disaffected pro-Israel Democrats like me.
Still, Hochul’s early endorsement of Mamdani’s candidacy could well end up being an albatross around her neck next year when she seeks reelection. Especially if the now prevailing anti-Israel sentiment recedes once the Israel-Hamas war is in the rearview mirror. The same goes for Mamdani’s other cheerleaders. Pendulums have a way of swinging back toward the center.
I, for one, will not vote for Hochul again. And yes, that means that I am open to supporting a palatable Republican nominee for New York governor. It’s not an easy conclusion for me to reach or decision to make, but I don’t see how I can do otherwise — and while I might be the early in declaring it publicly, I hardly think I will be alone.
I am writing in advance of the Tuesday’s election, which I hope may yet turn out to be a surprise, come-from-behind win for Andrew Cuomo. I am also doing so in advance of the inevitable attempts at fence-mending that will follow, regardless of the result.
I know New York’s centrist Democrats will try to win me back, and I know that the forces acting on Republicans may well make a return attractive. But I am making this vow now because I am distressed that while Mamdani’s mainstream allies may not have consciously written off the New York Jewish community, they are hoping for collective short memories on our part. I know, even if they do not, that Jewish security and survival have always depended on remembering.
—
The post I won’t vote for Democrats who backed Mamdani. I know I’m not the only one. appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Vance Says Israel ‘Not Controlling’ Trump, Fails to Defend Judaism in Response to Antisemitic Comments at Event
A screenshot of a question-and-answer session at the University of Mississippi in Oxford on Oct. 29, 2025, in which US Vice President JD Vance is questioned about his views on Israel and Judaism. Photo: Screenshot
US Vice President JD Vance on Wednesday responded to a question from a right-wing student activist who made antisemitic statements against Israel and Judaism, arguing the Jewish state does not control American foreign policy while not countering the questioner’s remarks targeting the Jewish religion.
Vance appeared at the University of Mississippi for an event held by Turning Point USA, the influential conservative advocacy organization led for years by the late Charlie Kirk.
More than 90 minutes into the session, during the questions portion, a man wearing a red “Make America Great Again” baseball cap and a white “Ole Miss” hoodie was given the microphone.
“Thank you for the opportunity to speak,” the individual said. “I’m a Christian man and I’m just confused why that there’s this notion that we might owe Israel something or that they’re our greatest ally or that we have to support this multi-hundred-billion-dollar foreign aid package to Israel to cover this — to quote Charlie Kirk, ethnic cleansing in Gaza. I’m just confused why this idea has come around considering the fact that not only does their religion not agree with ours but also openly supports the prosecution of ours.”
The question — in which the student incorrectly quoted Kirk, an outspoke pro-Israel advocate —prompted applause from the audience.
“First of all, when the president of the United States says ‘America first’ that means that he pursues the interests of Americans first. That is our entire foreign policy,” Vance responded. “That doesn’t mean that you’re not going to have alliances, that you’re not going to work with other countries from time to time. And that is what the president believes is that Israel, sometimes they have similar interests to the United States and we’re going to work with them in that case. Sometimes they don’t have similar interests to the United States.”
Vance used the example of the US-brokered ceasefire to halt fighting between Israel and Hamas in Gaza to illustrate his point.
“In this example, the most recent Gaza peace plan that all of us have been working on very hard for the past few weeks, the president of the United States could only get that peace deal done by actually being willing to apply leverage to the state of Israel,” Vance said. “So, when people say that Israel is somehow manipulating or controlling the president of the United States, they’re not controlling this president of the United States, which is one of the reasons why would we be able to have some of the success that we’ve had in the Middle East.”
The vice president, who was baptized into the Catholic faith in August 2019, then shifted to theological discourse, apparently wanting to respond to the student’s statement that Judaism “openly supports the persecution of Christians.
“Now you ask about, you know, sort of Jews disagreeing with Christians on certain religious ideas. Yeah, absolutely. It’s one of the realities is that Jews do not believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah. Obviously, Christians do believe that,” Vance said. “There are some significant theological disagreements between Christians and Jews. My attitude is let’s have those conversations. Let’s have those disagreements when we have them. But if there are shared areas of interest, we ought to be willing to do that, too.”
Vance continued, “One thing I really, really care about is the preservation of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. Christians believe that that is the site where Jesus Christ was crucified and also that his tomb is right there as well. My attitude is if we can work with our friends in Israel to make sure that Christians have safe access to that site, that’s an obvious area of common interest, I am fine with that.”
The vice president then emphasized to the student that he would not put Israel ahead of the United States, saying, “What I’m not OK with is any country coming before the interests of American citizens. And it is important for all of us, assuming we’re American citizens, to put the interest of our own country first. That’s what we’re going to do. That’s what we try to do every single day. I promise you. Thank you.”
Antisemitic sentiment on the American political right has surged in the weeks following the murder of Kirk, with prominent social media podcaster figures such as Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens suggesting Israeli involvement in the shooting without any evidence. This conspiracy theorizing inspired death threats against pro-Israel conservative figures and the arrest of a man now facing 140 years’ imprisonment.
On Monday, Carlson published a more than two-hour interview with neo-Nazi podcaster Nick Fuentes on X. Photos of Carlson with his arm around Fuentes’ shoulder and smiles on both their faces began circulating around social media.
Carlson apologized to Fuentes in the discussion, saying “I’m sorry I called you gay, by the way.” He also referenced the prominent political commentator Ben Shapiro, who is widely known to be an Orthodox Jew, adding, “I don’t think Fuentes is going away. Ben Shapiro tried to strangle him in the crib in college, and now he’s bigger than ever.”
In the interview, Fuentes contrasted himself with Shapiro, stating, “I didn’t come from some strange background. I come from a normal home. My parents are Catholic.”
Fuentes’s comments appear to differ with the views of Pope Leo XIV, the head of the Catholic Church.
Leo on Wednesday condemned antisemitism and affirmed the Catholic Church’s commitment to combating hatred and persecution against the Jewish people, arguing his faith demands such a stance.
Speaking in St. Peter’s Square at the Vatican for his weekly “general audience,” the pontiff acknowledged the 60th anniversary of Nostra Aetate, a declaration from the Second Vatican Council and promulgated on Oct. 28, 1965, by Pope Paul VI that called for dialogue and respect between Christianity and other religions.
Since the publication of Nostra Aetate, “all my predecessors have condemned antisemitism with clear words,” Leo said. “I too confirm that the Church does not tolerate antisemitism and fights against it, on the basis of the Gospel itself.”
Uncategorized
A sign in my neighborhood says ‘The Holocaust is fake’ — I wish I felt surprised
When I saw a sign on my streetcorner in Chicago that said “The Holocaust is fake,” I immediately stopped. I had just left the pool and was on my way to shop for Shabbat. Disgusted, I brought an older neighbor to take a look. I knew he had taken down his mezuzah in fear after some of the protests after Oct. 7 and had only recently put another Jewish symbol back up.
I wanted company as I snapped a picture of the sign, but I also wanted him to be aware of what was happening in the neighborhood. Because these days, the truth and lies are blurred.
Later, I learned that similar stickers and graffiti, some of it misspelled, had appeared on other corners and benches on the Far North side of Chicago, traditionally a stronghold of the Jewish community here, which is the third largest in the U.S.
“Holocaust” and “fake” are two words whose meanings used to be clear to all. Yet the doubt cast on both “Holocaust” and “fake” represent two disturbing trends; their convergence is dangerous, and entirely predictable.
Those who traffic in Holocaust minimization and denial have been recent guests on The Joe Rogan Experience, the country’s #1 podcast, which has far more listeners than network television. Rogan, who has hosted the “Holocaust revisionist” Darryl Cooper, has 19.4 million subscribers on YouTube, 19.7 million on Instagram and 15 million on X. Meanwhile, NBC and CBS News average 5.6 and 3.6 million viewers, respectively.
Redefining fake
Meanwhile, the mainstream news media, where fact-checking is prized, has been maligned for years as “fake news,” a term the current U.S. president uses so often that no one blinks when something real is dismissed. When fact-checked information is “fake,” it’s not surprising to see history described that way too.
The Holocaust was the ultimate truth of the 20th century. The ghettos, the crematoria, the gas chambers — so many elements of the industrialized and intentional slaughter of an entire people were without precedent and were the final stop on centuries of anti-Jewish hatred.
In the weeks after Oct. 7, I was haunted by the thought that the “genocide” charge against Israel was not just about criticizing Israel, but at root, about minimizing the Holocaust.
The term “genocide” was coined by Raphael Lemkin, a Polish-Jewish lawyer who had lost 49 members of his family in the Holocaust.
Yet the world’s oldest Holocaust archive changed its name in September 2019 from the Wiener Library for the Study of the Holocaust and Genocide to the Wiener Holocaust Library. The Library, located in London, stated that it wanted to clarify “the centrality of the Holocaust” to our work without changing its “commitment to furthering the study of genocide.”
A few years earlier, in 2011, Jeremy Corbyn, who would become Labour Party leader in 2015, sought to change “Holocaust Memorial Day” to “Genocide Memorial Day — Never Again for Anyone” in 2011. That prompted swift backlash.
“Holocaust Memorial Day already rightly includes all victims of the Nazis and subsequent genocides,” Karen Pollock, chief executive of the UK’s Holocaust Educational Trust, wrote at the time on Twitter. “But the Holocaust was a specific crime, with antisemitism at its core. Any attempt to remove that specificity is a form of denial and distortion.”
Changing the meaning of the word ‘Holocaust’
Increasingly, the word ‘Holocaust’ is being used to describe what was not the Holocaust.
Simon and Schuster is currently promoting a forthcoming book edited by Susan Abulhawa that it describes as documenting “the holocaust of our time.” The editor’s note accompanying the copy that reviewers have received is signed “From the river to the sea.”
According to the United States Holocaust Museum, “approximately 9.5 million Jews lived in Europe in 1933, the year Hitler came to power. This number represented 1.7% of Europe’s total population and more than 60 percent of the world’s Jewish population. By 1945, most European Jews — 2 out of every 3 — had been killed.”
The world Jewish population still hasn’t recovered its 1933 levels.
Even in this moment where words and numbers increasingly do not matter, there is no account — not even from the Hamas-run Health Ministry itself—-that suggests that 2/3 of Gazans have been killed in this conflict.
This is not to minimize the tremendous suffering of both Israelis and Palestinians in a war that began with a Hamas-led attack on Israel, in which some Gazan civilians participated. It was a horrible and harrowing two years.
Returned Israeli hostages have described being held in the homes of ordinary Gazans. CNN reported that three hostages were held in the home of a physician whose son was a freelance journalist for the US-based Palestine Chronicle. The son filed dispatches about the war in Gaza while his family held hostages.
Fact-check: A military attack and hostage-taking were not features of the Jewish community’s experience during the Holocaust.
What is real? What is fake?
Who’s a journalist? Who’s a hostage-holder?
What’s “news”? What’s “experience”?
What’s the difference between the Holocaust and the holocaust?
,
In this world where facts can be fake and nothing is taboo, anything seems possible. You can make the Holocaust into a lower-case “holocaust.” You can make Raphael Lemkin, the columnist for Zionist World, into an anti-Zionist, which was what Lemkin’s family asserted that the Lemkin Institute was doing, as it used their relative’s name while attacking Israel. And you can put up a sticker in a Jewish neighborhood claiming that the “Holocaust is fake.”
Holding on to disgust
I wrote to various family members with a photo of the sign in my neighborhood. None reacted too strongly; “I hate to say it, but I’m numb to this already,” one wrote.
I’m glad I’m still disgusted. I’m writing this to encourage you to be disgusted, too. Resist the guests on podcast “experience” forums who claim that antisemitism is being exaggerated, and that the Holocaust wasn’t that bad.
Because once holocaust is just a word, marketing copy from a publisher, devoid of Jewish content, and cleansed of historical accuracy, all words can be redefined to serve this kingdom of lies we increasingly seem to be living in.
The post A sign in my neighborhood says ‘The Holocaust is fake’ — I wish I felt surprised appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
US Lawmakers Want Response After Sudan ‘Horrors’ by Paramilitaries
Senator Jim Risch, a Republican from Idaho and ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, speaks during a hearing in Washington, US, April 26, 2022. Photo: Al Drago/Pool via REUTERS
Republican and Democratic US senators called for a strong response from President Donald Trump’s administration after the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces seized new territory in Sudan, reportedly attacking civilians.
Republican Senator Jim Risch of Idaho, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, called for the US to officially designate the RSF as a foreign terrorist organization.
“The horrors in Darfur’s El-Fasher were no accident — they were the RSF’s plan all along. The RSF has waged terror and committed unspeakable atrocities, genocide among them, against the Sudanese people,” he said in a statement on X on Tuesday.
On Wednesday, Senator Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, the committee’s top Democrat, said she most likely would back such a response from Washington. Asked whether she would back an FTO designation, Shaheen told reporters, “Probably,” but added she would like to take a longer look at the issue.
Shaheen criticized the United Arab Emirates, which is accused by the Sudanese army of providing military support to the RSF. The UAE denies it. “The UAE has been an irresponsible player who has contributed to one of the worst humanitarian crises that we have on the planet right now,” she said.
In an emailed statement, the UAE Strategic Communications Department said the UAE has consistently supported efforts to achieve a ceasefire, protect civilians and ensure accountability for violations and rejected claims it provided any form of support to either warring party.
“The latest UN Panel of Experts report makes clear that there is no substantiated evidence that the UAE has provided any support to RSF, or has any involvement in the conflict,” the statement said.
The war in Sudan erupted in April 2023 from a power struggle between the army and the RSF, unleashing waves of ethnic violence, creating the world’s worst humanitarian crisis and plunging several areas into famine. Tens of thousands of people have been killed and about 13 million displaced.
The State Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment on its plans for designating the RSF.
In January, the administration of Trump’s Democratic predecessor, then-President Joe Biden said it determined that members of the RSF and allied militias committed genocide in Sudan and imposed sanctions on the group’s leader, Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemedti.
The RSF denied harming civilians.
Al-Fashir, the Sudanese army’s last significant holdout in the western region of Darfur, fell to the RSF on Sunday after an 18-month siege that consolidated its control of the area. Aid groups and activists have warned of the potential for ethnically motivated revenge attacks as the RSF overwhelmed the army and allied fighters, many from the Zaghawa ethnic group.
Sudanese paramilitary forces beat and shot men fleeing from a long-besieged city in Darfur after capturing it, according to an account from escapee Ikram Abdelhameed, corroborated by statements from aid officials, satellite images, and unverified social media videos.