Connect with us

Uncategorized

Jews are worried about Zohran Mamdani. Here’s why they shouldn’t be

As New York City’s mayoral election moves ahead, there appear to be three major issues that trouble many of my friends within the Jewish community about Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic candidate and frontrunner.

Will Mamdani take pains to appropriately protect the city’s Jewish community during this period of heightened antisemitism, they ask? Should his views on the Middle East disqualify him from the support of Jewish voters? And is he sufficiently experienced to serve as Mayor of the largest and most complex city in the nation?

As a one-time city official deeply involved in the city’s Jewish community, I think each of those questions is valid — and each easily answerable, in Mamdani’s favor.

Concerns about antisemitism

There are understandable fears within the Jewish community about our safety at a time of rising antisemitism. To that, I say: It’s hard to imagine a stronger program of protection against hate than that which Mamdani has outlined.

Mamdani has proposed a 800% increase for funding hate crime prevention — a comprehensive investment that should reassure those of us who are most alarmed. Antisemitism “is a real crisis that we have to tackle, and one that I’m committed to doing so through increased funding for actually preventing hate crimes across the city,” Mamdani told NPR this summer, adding “my commitment is to protect Jewish New Yorkers and that I will live up to that commitment through my actions.”

Compare that to the plans put forward by Mamdani’s opponents, former Gov. Andrew Cuomo — who is running as an Independent, after Mamdani defeated him in the Democratic Primary — and Curtis Sliwa, a Republican. Cuomo has promised to prioritize fighting antisemitism, but has focused on forms of antisemitism more associated with the political left, in a fashion that leaves open the question of whether he’s prepared to address the often more violent threats of right-wing antisemitism. And Sliwa, who has a record of offensive statements about Jews, appears to be less interested in having the city directly involved in Jewish safety. “I, unlike any of the candidates, have said Jews must protect themselves,” he said in an interview with the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. “If you depend strictly on Gentiles, history is replete with instances where you’re going to be horribly disappointed.”

Notably, Mamdani’s proposals appear to be resonating with Jewish voters: Despite concerns about his positions when it comes to the Middle East, a new poll suggests his support among Jewish New Yorkers is effectively equivalent to Cuomo’s.

The Middle East

Jewish New Yorkers are not single-issue voters living in fear. We are looking for a mayor who can build a coalition to improve our already great city.

As for the Middle East, it is true that Mamdani has been harshly critical of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s far-right government. What’s also true: Most American Jews agree with him. According to a recent Washington Post poll, a majority of American Jews believe Netanyahu’s government has overseen war crimes in Gaza, and almost 40% believe Israel has committed genocide.

In that context, Mamdani seems like a candidate much more aligned with Jewish perspectives on Israel than Cuomo, who joined one of Netanyahu’s legal defense teams pro bono. In the weeks leading up to the current ceasefire in the Israel-Hamas war, Cuomo expressed some concern about the shocking events in Gaza — but continued to broadly align himself with Netanyahu’s talking points. While his position might be reassuring to the majority of American Jews who feel a close attachment to Israel, it doesn’t suggest that he’s ready or able to handle the nuances of today’s changing environment — and changing Jewish perspectives.

I am a founding member of J Street, a Zionist, pro-peace organization that supports a two-state solution and opposes the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. I differ with some of Mamdani’s views about the future for Israelis and Palestinians, including his failure to vocally support a two-state solution.

But one doesn’t have to agree with all of his views about the Middle East to conclude that he is the best candidate for mayor. As Mamdani himself said in a recent appearance, “We’re not looking for a litmus test that we feel the same way we do on every single issue, and that includes Israel and Palestine.

“There may be a Jewish New Yorker who will not see themselves in me because of a disagreement we have on that question,” he added, “but I want to make sure they still see themselves in the city.”

The issue of experience

I served as Corporation Counsel, the city’s chief legal officer, under former Mayor David N. Dinkins, which means I have some experience with the challenges facing any new administration. Upon taking office, I found that with the assistance of experienced managers in the City’s civil service, I could bring myself up to date quickly. That leads me to believe that if Mamdanis is elected as mayor, he will find that, with the right help, learning the ins and outs of the city’s many agencies will be strenuous but doable.

Mamdani has been taking significant steps toward crafting a transition team that should comfort any New Yorkers concerned about his youth and relative inexperience. (It’s worth remembering that Mamdani is already well acquainted with how complicated it can be to work within a government, with his six years’ experience as a New York Assemblyman from Queens.) According to public reports, the transition efforts have already included meetings with plenty of experienced public servants, including Dan Doctoroff, former Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s former deputy mayor for economic development; Janette Sadik-Kahn, Bloomberg’s former commissioner of transportation; and Alicia Glen, who served as deputy mayor for housing and economic development under former Mayor Bill De Blasio. Doctoroff, for example, has been quoted saying “I will help him in any way possible.”

What this shows me: Mamdani knows he’s going to need a crack team to be a successful mayor. True leadership isn’t about being personally able to take on every challenge: It’s about knowing how to assemble and run a team that has that ability.

Notably, Bloomberg — to my view the most successful mayor we have had in this century — had no governmental experience and little familiarity with the complexity of the city’s public administration before taking office.

Yet through the selection of an outstanding group of municipal leaders and public servants, he was able to assemble a first-rate administration. He led the city’s amazing and effective efforts to recover quickly from 9/11, in part by attracting outstanding and often non-political experts to serve as senior members of his administration.

In contrast, De Blasio, former Mayor Rudy Giuliani and current Mayor Eric Adams each came into the role with many years of governmental experience. Yet the record of each was, shall we say, unsuccessful. The Adams administration is known for serious allegations of corruption at the highest levels. The De Blasio administration, after a promising start, deteriorated, as the mayor was too often distracted by other political ambitions, and proved prone to confusion and dispiriting inefficiency. The Giuliani administration was marred by racial insensitivity and defense of unacceptable police misconduct.

Why should we have less hope for Mamdani than we did for Bloomberg? And why should we expect that, in light of the ineffective recent mayoralties, a more traditional candidate would be more effective?

Mamdani has told those with whom he is consulting that he admired many of the accomplishments of the Bloomberg administration — a strong sign that he’s noticed the most important lesson of Bloomberg’s mayoralty. With the aid of experienced and well-qualified city officials, such as former Comptroller Brad Lander, and with the active support of experienced public officials like Rep. Jerry Nadler, Assemblyman Micah Lasher and Gov. Kathy Hochul, there is every reason to hope his administration will be thoughtful about hiring experienced managers, and crafting a new generation of dedicated New Yorkers to lead us into the future.

The post Jews are worried about Zohran Mamdani. Here’s why they shouldn’t be appeared first on The Forward.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Are you a Good Witch or a Bad Witch? Or a Jewitch?

When I was a little girl, I played Witch all the time. I was The Grande Madame — the Queen of all the Witches. I even wrote spooky musicals for the neighborhood kids. We set up lawn chairs in my friend Susie’s backyard in Queens, and made our parents watch. If I had been more business minded, I would have sold tickets.

Now I teach music and something must have stayed with me, because October is my favorite month — Witchy Music Month. This week, I put on my pointy hat, plugged in my spooky orange lights, and played some scenes from The Wizard of Oz and Snow White for the kiddos.

Then I noticed something.

Both witches had big, hooked noses. What they used to call “Jewish Noses.” The noses that kept New York surgeons busy when we hit 18. Many of us got nose jobs. It wasn’t a secret. It was expected.

My mother said no, so I couldn’t get one, but it didn’t stop me from kvetching. (I also asked to be sent to a Swiss Finishing School — again, no.)

I looked it up. A big study in 1914 debunked the theory that Jews actually had big noses — 14% aquiline, compared with 10% of the regular population. Considering that Jews are a people sometimes “bottlenecked from geographic diversity” in a more modern study in 2022, meaning that we weren’t allowed to live anywhere we wanted, and definitely meaning that we inbred, it doesn’t sound like we owned Big Nose.

Tell everybody.

Still, the “hook-nosed” Jewish stereotype remains. Hard to get rid of stereotypes, and harder to get rid of what most people find conventionally attractive. Especially when Disney adds to the Big Hooked Nose in Snow White’s witch — with some well-placed warts.

The most famous Jewish Witch story was when King Saul wanted to go to battle with the Philistines and consulted the Witch of Endor. She summoned Prophet Samuel’s Spirit for the King. Alas Samuel prophesied Doom, and King Saul and his son Jonathan were killed the next day.

The irony was that King Saul had banned all witches, until he needed one himself.

And do you remember what TV writer Sol Sacks named Samantha’s mother in the TV series, Bewitched? Yes, Endora. I bet Sacks’ Hebrew School teacher was proud.

My son, Aaron, is most like me, and I guess most susceptible to my witchiness. He really believed when he was little, and I remember once picking him up from his second grade class. As I bent down to tie Aaron’s shoe, I felt 100 little eyes on me. When I straightened up, I was surrounded by a solemn crowd.  A little girl pointed and said, “Aaron, she doesn’t look like a witch.”

I have to admit, I was a little insulted.

I also have to admit that I did use my powers on Aaron and I am a little ashamed. When he was six, he hated Shabbos because of its restrictions. No TV, no piano, no trips in the car to the 7-Eleven for Slurpees; and endless synagogue.

But this happened on a Wednesday night. He was in a mood and was smashing all her plastic swords and yelling, and I was on the phone trying to accept a music gig with a bride and groom. I told the couple I’d call them right back.

“Aaron,” I looked at him. “If you don’t stop right now — I’m gonna make it SHABBOS!”

He dropped his swords in petrified horror. “C-c-can you really DO that?”

And then I did something I’m even more ashamed of. I smiled.

 

 

 

The post Are you a Good Witch or a Bad Witch? Or a Jewitch? appeared first on The Forward.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Turkey-Qatar Partnership Grows While Hamas Refuses to Disarm, Raising Alarm Bells Over Gaza’s Future

Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan is welcomed by Qatar’s Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani in Doha, Qatar, Oct. 22, 2025. Photo: Murat Kula/Turkish Presidential Press Office/Handout via REUTERS

As Qatar and Turkey further expand their relationship, concerns are mounting that their growing influence in Gaza could bolster Hamas and complicate the fragile ceasefire, as both countries pursue their regional ambitions in the war-torn enclave.

On Wednesday, Ankara and Doha signed new agreements on defense, trade, and strategic planning, deepening a partnership that continues to raise alarm bells among Israel, Gulf states, and experts, who warn that their expanding roles in Gaza’s reconstruction efforts could potentially strengthen Hamas’s terrorist infrastructure.

As part of his three-day Gulf tour, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan traveled to Doha to meet with Qatari Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani.

During the 11th meeting of the Turkey–Qatar High Strategic Committee, the two leaders issued a joint declaration reaffirming their commitment to maintaining the US-backed Gaza peace plan.

Erdogan’s diplomatic visit came a day after Hamas leaders met with Qatari and Turkish officials in Doha to discuss the ongoing Israel-Hamas ceasefire and plans for rebuilding Gaza after the war.

As both nations expanded their relationship with new cooperation agreements, Turkey has reportedly sought to acquire billions of dollars’ worth of military technology from Qatar, including 24 used and 16 new Eurofighter Typhoon jets.

If approved, the deal would allow Doha to provide Ankara with an immediate solution to its operational gap, bypassing the Eurofighter production schedule, which is currently overbooked due to high global demand.

Amid rising geopolitical tensions, Turkey’s move to acquire advanced multi-role combat aircraft would strengthen its position as a key regional power and reduce reliance on American-made systems, while representing a major step in modernizing its combat aviation fleet.

However, concerns over Qatar and Turkey’s expanding partnership come at a time when the fragile Gaza ceasefire, though seemingly holding, faces mounting challenges, as the Palestinian terrorist group continues to refuse disarmament — an essential component of US President Donald Trump’s peace plan.

On Saturday, Hamas reiterated the group’s refusal to give up its weapons as part of the ceasefire.

“The proposed weapons handover is out of the question and not negotiable,” a Hamas official told AFP.

Hamas Politburo member Mohammed Nazzal also said the group could not commit to disarmament, as it intends to maintain security control in Gaza during an interim period.

Even though Hamas has publicly expressed these views before, these latest remarks have heightened concerns over obstacles to ending the war in Gaza, with the next phase of ceasefire negotiations waiting to begin.

In this regional context, experts warn that both Turkey and Qatar — as two of the largest state sponsors of Hamas, with long-standing ties to the terrorist group — could shield the Islamist movement in Gaza or even bolster its terror infrastructure, as they seek a central role in post-war efforts.

Alongside the United States and regional powers, Qatar has served as a ceasefire mediator during the two-year conflict in Gaza, facilitating indirect negotiations between the Jewish state and Hamas, which has ruled the enclave for nearly two decades.

However, Doha has also backed the Palestinian terrorist group for years, providing Hamas with money and diplomatic support while hosting and sheltering its top leadership.

Turkey has also been a major international backer of Hamas and has maintained an openly hostile stance toward the Jewish state for years.

During his visit to Doha, Erdogan said the ceasefire “has provided relief to Palestinians,” but reiterated that a two-state solution was the only path to resolving the conflict with Israel.

Under Trump’s plan, Turkey is expected to join a multinational task force responsible for overseeing the ceasefire and training local security forces.

However, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hinted at opposition to any involvement of Turkish security forces in post-war Gaza.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Major Body of University Professors Targets Antisemitism Prevention Policies at University of Pennsylvania

Anti-Israel encampment at University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, PA, USA in May 2024. Photo: Robyn Stevens via Reuters Connect

The American Association of University Professors (AAUP), the largest and oldest US organization for defending faculty rights, is picking a fight over the University of Pennsylvania’s efforts to combat antisemitism, arguing that a range of faculty speech and conduct considered hostile by Jewish members of the campus community are key components of academic freedom.

In a letter to the administration regarding antidiscrimination investigations opened by Penn’s Office of Religious and Ethnic Interests (OREI), the group charged that efforts to investigate alleged antisemitism on campus and punish those found to have perpetrated can constitute discrimination. Its argument reprises recent claims advanced by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) group, notorious for its defense of Sharia law and alleged ties to jihadist groups such as Hamas, in a lawsuit which aims to dismantle antisemitism prevention training at Northwestern University.

“Harassing, surveilling, intimidating, and punishing members of the university community for research, teaching, and extramural speech based on overly broad definitions of antisemitism does nothing to combat antisemitism, but it can perpetuate anti-Arab, anti-Muslim, and anti-Palestinian racism, muzzle political criticism of the Israeli government by people of any background, and create a climate of fear and self-censorship that threatens the academic freedom of all faculty and students,” the AAUP said, threatening to scrutinize the university. “AAUP-Penn will continue to monitor reports related to OREI.”

Additionally, the AAUP described Penn’s efforts to protect Jewish students from antisemitism as resulting from “government interference in university procedures” while arguing that merely reporting antisemitism subjects the accused to harassment, seemingly suggesting that many Jewish students who have been assaulted, academically penalized, and exposed to hate speech on college campuses across the US are perpetrators rather than victims. The group also argued that other minority groups from “protected classes,” such as Arabs and African Americans, are disproportionately investigated for antisemitism.

Despite the AAUP’s claims, some University of Pennsylvania faculty have played an outsized role in organizing antisemitic activities on campus, as previously reported by The Algemeiner.

In 2023, professor Huda Fakhreddine helped organize the “Palestine Writes Festival,” a gathering of anti-Zionists which featured Gaza-based professor Refaat Alareer, who said in 2018, “Are most Jews evil? Of course they are,” and Salman Abu Sitta, who once said in an interview that “Jews were hated in Europe because they played a role in the destruction of the economy in some of the countries, so they would hate them.” Roger Waters, the former Pink Floyd frontman, was also initially scheduled as a speaker, despite a documentary exposing his long record of anti-Jewish barbs. In one instance, a former colleague recalled Waters at a restaurant yelling at the wait staff to “take away the Jew food.”

That event prompted a deluge of antisemitic incidents at the University of Pennsylvania, including Nazi graffiti and a student’s trailing a staffer into the university’s Hillel building and shouting “F–k the Jews” and “Jesus Christ is king!” overturning tables, podium stands, and chairs. Fakhreddine, who days after the Hamas-led Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel attended an on-campus rally in which a speaker castigated what he called “the Israeli Jew,” later sued Congress to halt its investigation of campus antisemitism at Penn.

The professor’s civil complaint brimmed with classic antisemitic tropes, describing efforts to eradicate antisemitism as a conspiracy by “billionaire donors, pro-Israel groups, other litigants, and segments of the media” to squelch criticism of Israel and harm Arab students and academics. It also disparaged the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, calling it a tool of a “militant minority which believes that Israel can do no wrong” and alleging that it is “unconstitutional” and the bedrock of a larger plan of a “social engineering movement” to abolish the First Amendment of the US Constitution. A federal judge ultimately threw the case out of court.

The following year, the University Pennsylvania pledged in a report on antisemitism that it would never again confer academic legitimacy to antisemitism and formally denounced the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel as “discriminatory” and “anti-intellectual.” The university also passed other policies aimed at protecting academic freedom and free speech from attempts to invoke them as justification for uttering hate speech and founded the Office of Religious and Ethnic Interests, which the AAUP is now accusing of breaking the law.

The AAUP has defended antisemitic speech before.

In 2014, it accused the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign of violating the tenets of academic freedom when it declined to approve the hiring of Steven Salaita because he uttered a slew of antisemitic, extramural comments on social media, such as “Zionists transforming ‘antisemitism from something horrible into something honorable since 1948,” “Every Jewish boy and girl can grow up to be the leader of a murderous colonial regime,” and “By eagerly conflating Jewishness and Israel, Zionists are partly responsible when people say antisemitic s—t in response to Israeli terror.”

An AAUP report that chronicled the incident, which mushroomed into a major controversy in academia, listed those tweets and others but still concluded that not hiring Salaita “acted in violation of the 1940 Statement of Principles of Academic Freedom and Tenure” and “cast a pall of uncertainty over the degree to which academic freedom is understood and respected.” At the same time, the AAUP said that it was “committed to fighting systemic racism and pursuing racial justice and equity in colleges and universities, in keeping with the association’s mission to ensure higher education’s contribution to the common good.”

Other actions have moved the AAUP further into the world of left-wing anti-Zionism, tarnishing its image as a bipartisan guardian of scholarship and inquiry.

Following Hamas’s massacre across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, two and a half weeks passed before the AAUP commented on the ensuing conflict between Israel and Hamas, and when it did, the group said nothing about the Palestinian terrorist group’s atrocities, instead discussing the importance of academic freedom. At the time, many professors cheered Hamas’s violence and encouraged extreme anti-Zionist demonstrations in which masses of students and faculty called for the elimination of the Jewish state “from the river to the sea,” which is widely interpreted as a call for genocide.

In August 2024, the AAUP issued a statement in support of academic boycotts, a seismic decision which reversed decades of policy and cleared the way for scholar activists to escalate their efforts to purge the university of Zionism and educational partnerships with Israel.

Coming amid a bitter debate about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on college campuses and Israel’s war to eradicate Hamas from the Gaza Strip, the statement did not mention the Jewish state specifically, but its countenancing the anti-Israel BDS movement was made clear, according to Jewish and pro-Israel leaders, by a section of the statement which said that boycotts “can legitimately seek to protect and advance the academic freedom and fundamental rights of colleagues and students who are living and working under circumstances that violate that freedom and one or more of those rights.”

In March, the AAUP held a webinar which promoted false claims about Israel’s conduct in the war with Hamas in Gaza.

Titled “Scholasticide in Palestine,” the virtual event accused Israel of “scholasticide” and “exterminationist” tactics of war. Such accusations cite damages sustained by education institutions and loss of life in Gaza, but rather than describing those misfortunes as inevitable consequences of a protracted war that Hamas started by launching the surprise Oct. 7 massacre, those leading the AAUP event argued that Israel’s aim was to murder educators and erase Palestinian history and culture.

“We are very concerned that AAUP, whose stated mission includes representing all academics and ensuring ‘higher education’s contribution to the common good’ continues to act in ways that demonize Israel, marginalize Jewish and Israeli members, and promote policies and events that portray a one-sided, politicized view of complex issues,” Jonathan Greenblatt, chief executive officer of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), said at the time.

Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News