Uncategorized
Is Mamdani bad or good for Jews? Here’s how not to tell
What will Zohran Mamdani’s mayoralty mean for New York City’s Jews?
Much ink was spilled on that question during Mamdani’s campaign. But now that he is actually in office, there are two approaches we can use in assessing his performance in tackling antisemitism.
The first involves focusing on signals. We saw this method used extensively in expressions of concern during Mamdani’s campaign. His refusal to condemn the phrase “globalize the intifada” on a podcast, for example, was taken as a signal that he would not be serious about fighting antisemitism.
The second involves looking at how the new mayor actually shows up for Jews — a tactic that means taking a longer view of his ability to navigate the complicated and painful issues facing Jewish communities.
The first approach has already been used widely in Mamdani’s first days in office.
On Jan. 1, Mamdani overturned a host of executive orders that his predecessor, former Mayor Eric Adams, had put into place, some of which were relevant to antisemitism and Israel. This included revoking the city’s use of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism.
Critics of that definition say that it threatens to chill legitimate criticism of Israel. (The IHRA definition includes, among possible examples of antisemitism, actions like “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.”) And some Jews argue that it insists on a limited understanding of Jewish identity for political purposes.
But to some, Mamdani’s revocation of the Adams order enshrining that definition was an important signal — one that cemented a sense that he does not take Jewish safety or wellbeing seriously.
“Removing protections is a dangerous move, especially on day one. Jewish New Yorkers deserve security, not a delete button,” ADL chief Jonathan Greenblatt posted. “Despite the eloquent rhetoric, actions like this speak far, far louder than words.”
Israel’s foreign ministry wrote, “This isn’t leadership. It’s antisemitic gasoline on an open fire.” And William Daroff, head of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish organizations, said Mamdani’s move was “a troubling indicator of the direction in which he is leading the city, just one day at the helm.”
But there is little evidence that adopting the IHRA definition of antisemitism has done anything to actually quell antisemitism, despite a broad push to have it embraced by universities, states and the federal government.
Which raises the question: When we broadly interpret individual acts as symbols of a deeper intention, what do we miss?
At the same time Mamdani overturned every executive order signed by Adams since late September 2024, when Adams was indicted on corruption charges, he announced that he will keep the Office to Combat Antisemitism — which Adams founded — open. That office liaises between the city and its Jews on safety and security, and will make recommendations to Mamdani on public education efforts around antisemitism.
What if we asked practical, rather than symbolic, questions in response to those day one actions?
Not “how outraged should we be by the revocation of the IHRA definition?” but “will that revocation actually change how safe Jews are?” Or: What will the functions of the Office to Combat Antisemitism actually look like under Mamdani? How will the office track antisemitism? What will it do differently under Mamdani than under Adams? What will public education on antisemitism in Mamdani’s New York look like?
Mamdani revoked an Adams order that gave the police commissioner — currently Jessica Tisch — the responsibility to evaluate proposals for regulating protests outside houses of worship. (Mamdani was criticized for his response to a November protest outside Park East Synagogue.) But he put in place a new order that authorized the Police Department and Law Department to conduct similar reviews.
Concerned Jews could ask how those departments will handle this role differently, and what the new mayor will do with their proposals.
And beyond that: Which Jewish communities will Mamdani engage with, and what will he offer them in terms of practical action? How will he demonstrate a commitment to Jewish New Yorkers, in all their pluralism and diversity? If other officials in New York engage in antisemitic conspiracy theories, how will he react to them?
What will it look like when he celebrates holidays with Jewish New Yorkers? When he inevitably disagrees with various Jewish New Yorkers, how will his administration try to communicate across differences?
Taking this second approach could come with downsides. Polling shows that New York Jews continue to be deeply anxious about their future under Mamdani, and are eager for quick answers on what they can expect for the next four years. Evaluating the real impact of his performance does not offer concise opportunities for a headline or a statement offering those responses. It’s a slower and more boring kind of proof to collect.
But it has upsides, too. The answers would be slower to come, but they would reflect not just strong feelings around what could happen, but what is actually happening. They would be nuanced. And maybe they would lead to a stronger sense of safety and security, too.
The post Is Mamdani bad or good for Jews? Here’s how not to tell appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
One Person Killed, 14 Hurt in Blast in Iranian Port of Bandar Abbas, Iranian Media Reports
FILE PHOTO: An aerial view of the Iranian shores and Port of Bandar Abbas in the strait of Hormuz, December 10, 2023. REUTERS/Stringer/File Photo
At least one person was killed and 14 injured in an explosion in the southern Iranian port of Bandar Abbas on Saturday, a local official told Iranian news agencies, but the cause of the blast was not known.
The semi-official Tasnim news agency said that social media reports alleging that a Revolutionary Guard navy commander had been targeted in the explosion were “completely false.”
Iranian media said the blast was under investigation but provided no further information. Iranian authorities could not immediately be contacted for comment.
Separately, four people were killed after a gas explosion in the city of Ahvaz near the Iraqi border, according to state-run Tehran Times. No further information was immediately available.
Two Israeli officials told Reuters that Israel was not involved in Saturday’s blasts, which come amid heightened tensions between Tehran and Washington over Iran’s crackdown on nationwide protests and over the country’s nuclear program.
The Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
US President Donald Trump said on January 22 an “armada” was heading toward Iran. Multiple sources said on Friday that Trump was weighing options against Iran that include targeted strikes on security forces.
Earlier on Saturday, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian accused US, Israeli and European leaders of exploiting Iran’s economic problems, inciting unrest and providing people with the means to “tear the nation apart.”
Bandar Abbas, home to Iran’s most important container port, lies on the Strait of Hormuz, a vital waterway between Iran and Oman which handles about a fifth of the world’s seaborne oil.
The port suffered a major explosion last April that killed dozens and injured over 1,000 people. An investigative committee at the time blamed the blast on shortcomings in adherence to principles of civil defense and security.
Iran has been rocked by nationwide protests that erupted in December over economic hardship and have posed one of the toughest challenges to the country’s clerical rulers.
At least 5,000 people were killed in the protests, including 500 members of the security forces, an Iranian official told Reuters.
Uncategorized
How a law used to protect synagogues is now being deployed against ICE protesters and journalists
After a pro-Palestinian protest at a New Jersey synagogue turned violent in October, the Trump administration took an unusual step — using a federal law typically aimed at protecting abortion clinics to sue the demonstrators.
Now, federal authorities are attempting to deploy the same law against journalists as well as protesters against Immigration and Customs Enforcement amid the agency’s at times violent crackdown in Minneapolis.
Former CNN anchor Don Lemon, a local journalist, and two protesters were arrested after attending a Jan. 18 anti-ICE protest at a church in St. Paul, Minnesota, Justice Department officials said Friday. Protesters alleged the pastor at Cities Church worked for ICE.
The federal law they are accused of violating, the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, or FACE, prohibits the use of force or intimidation to interfere with reproductive health care clinics and houses of worship.
But in the three decades since its passage in 1994, the law had almost entirely been deployed against anti-abortion protesters causing disruptions at clinics.
That changed in September of last year, when the Trump administration cited the FACE Act to sue pro-Palestinian demonstrators at Congregation Ohr Torah in West Orange, New Jersey.
It was the first time the Department of Justice had used the law against demonstrators outside a house of worship, Harmeet Dhillon, an assistant attorney general for the department’s civil rights division, said at the time.
The novel legal strategy — initially advanced by Jewish advocacy groups to fight antisemitism — is now front and center in what First Amendment advocates are describing as an attack on freedom of the press.
“I intend to identify and find every single person in that mob that interrupted that church service in that house of God and bring them to justice,” Dhillon told Newsmax last week. “And that includes so-called ‘journalists.’”
How the law has been used
The FACE Act has traditionally been used to prosecute protesters who interfere with patients entering abortion clinics. Conservative activists have long criticized the law as violating demonstrators’ First Amendment rights, and the Trump administration even issued a memo earlier this month saying the Justice Department should limit enforcement of the law.
But in September, the Trump administration applied the FACE Act in a new way: suing the New Jersey protesters at Congregation Ohr Torah.
They had disrupted an event at the Orthodox shul that promoted real estate sales in Israel and the West Bank, blowing plastic horns in people’s ears and chanting “globalize the intifada,” a complaint alleges.
Two pro-Israel demonstrators were charged by local law enforcement with aggravated assault, including a local dentist, Moshe Glick, who police said bashed a protester in the head with a metal flashlight, sending him to the hospital. Glick said he had acted in self defense, protecting a fellow congregant who had been tackled by a protester.
The event soon became a national flashpoint, with Glick’s lawyer alleging the prosecution had been “an attempt to criminalize Jewish self-defense.” Former New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy pardoned Glick earlier this month.
The Trump administration sued the pro-Palestinian protesters under the FACE Act, seeking to ban them from protesting outside houses of worship and asking that they each pay thousands of dollars in fines.
At the time, Nathan Diament, executive director of the Orthodox Union Advocacy Center, told JNS he applauded the Trump administration “for bringing this suit to protect the Jewish community and all people of faith, who have the constitutional right to worship without fear of harassment.”
Diament did not respond to the Forward’s email asking whether he supported the use of the FACE Act against the Minneapolis journalists and protesters.
Mark Goldfeder, CEO of the National Jewish Advocacy Center, a pro-Israel group that says it uses legal tools to counter antisemitism, did not express concern over the use of the FACE Act in the Minnesota arrests — and emphasized the necessity of protecting religious spaces from interference.
“The idea that ‘you can worship’ means nothing if a mob can make it unsafe or impossible,” Goldfeder wrote in a statement to the Forward. “So if you apply it consistently: to protect a church in Minnesota, a synagogue in New Jersey, a mosque in Detroit, what you are actually protecting is pluralism itself.”
Goldfeder has also attempted to use the FACE Act against protesters at a synagogue, citing the law in a July 2024 complaint against demonstrators who had converged on an event promoting Israel real estate at Adas Torah synagogue in Los Angeles. That clash descended into violence.
The Trump administration Justice Department subsequently filed a statement of interest supporting that case, arguing that what constituted “physical obstruction” at a house of worship under the FACE Act could be interpreted broadly.
Now, similar legal reasoning may apply to journalists covering the Sunday church protest in Minneapolis. Press freedom groups have expressed deep alarm over the arrests, arguing that the journalists were there to document, not disrupt.
The arrests are “the latest example of the administration coming up with far-fetched ‘gotcha’ legal theories to send a message to journalists to tread cautiously,” said Seth Stern, chief of advocacy for Freedom of the Press Foundation. “Because the government is looking for any way to target them.”
The post How a law used to protect synagogues is now being deployed against ICE protesters and journalists appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Nearly 90% of Turkish Opinion Columns Favor Hamas, Study Shows
Pro-Hamas demonstrators in Istanbul, Turkey, carry a banner calling for Israel’s elimination. Photo: Reuters/Dilara Senkaya
About 90 percent of opinion articles published in two of Turkey’s leading media outlets portray the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas in a positive or neutral light, according to a new study, reflecting Ankara’s increasingly hostile stance toward Israel.
Earlier this week, the Israel-based Jewish People Policy Institute released a report examining roughly 15,000 opinion columns in the widely read Turkish newspapers Sabah and Hürriyet, revealing that Hamas is often depicted positively through a “resistance movement” narrative portraying its members as “martyrs.”
For example, Turkish journalist Abdulkadir Selvi, writing in Hürriyet, described the assassinated Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh as “a holy martyr not only of Palestine but of Islam as a whole” who “fought for peace,” while portraying Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as “the new Hitler.”
JPPI also found that most articles in these two newspapers took a neutral stance on the Hamas-led invasion of and massacre across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, offering almost no clear condemnation of the attacks and failing to acknowledge the group’s targeting of civilians.
Some journalists even went so far as to praise the violence as serving the Palestinian cause, the study noted.
In one striking example, Hürriyet published an article just one day after the attack, lauding the “resistance fighters” who carried out a “mythic” assault on the “Zionist occupying regime” and celebrating the killings.
In other cases, some journalists went as far as to portray Hamas as treating the Israeli hostages it kidnapped “kindly,” denying that the terrorist group had tortured and sexually abused former captives despite clear evidence.
“There was not the slightest indication that the Israelis released by the Palestinian resistance had been tortured,” Turkish journalist Hilal Kaplan wrote in Sabah, denying claims that the hostages had suffered brutal abuse.
“They all looked exactly the same physically as they did on Oct. 6, 2023, more than a year later,” he continued.
Prof. Yedidia Stern, president of JPPI, described the study’s findings as “deeply troubling,” urging Israeli officials not to overlook the Turkish media’s positive portrayal of Hamas and denial of its abuses.
“We must not normalize incitement and antisemitism anywhere in the world – certainly not when it comes from countries with which Israel maintains diplomatic relations,” Stern said in a statement.
According to the study, nearly half of the columns expressed a positive view of Hamas, while approximately 40 percent took a neutral position.
The analysis also found that around 40 percent of opinion columns mentioning Jews or Judaism contained antisemitic elements, with some invoking “Jewish capital” to suggest global power, while others compared Zionism to Nazism or depicted Jews as immune from international criticism.
For instance, two weeks after the Oct. 7 atrocities, Turkish journalist Nedim Şener wrote in Hürriyet that global Jewish capital and control over media and international institutions had brought the United States and Europe “to their knees,” allowing Israel to carry out a “genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.”