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.
Uncategorized
For Venezuela’s historic Jewish community, the earthquake is a crisis they can’t afford
Less than two hours after two powerful earthquakes left hundreds dead and thousands missing in northern Venezuela, including its capital city of Caracas, families whose homes had been rendered unlivable began to make their way to Hebraica, the Jewish community center in Caracas, where they spent the night sleeping on beach chairs and in cars parked on the center’s football field.
That night, more than 400 people sought refuge.
“Based on all the years of hardships we’ve had — massive power outages and other problems — the community already knows where they can go if something happens,” said Roberto Mishkin, president of the Union Israelita de Caracas, the country’s largest Ashkenazi Jewish congregation, adding that aftershocks are still rattling the area.
“A lot of people don’t want to return because they live on high floors. They’re scared.”
The sprawling campus of Hebraica— built decades ago when Venezuela’s Jewish population numbered around 30,000 — has become an emergency shelter, complete with mattresses, medical care, communal meals and preparations for Shabbat.
According to community leaders, two members of Venezuela’s Jewish community have been confirmed dead, and several others remain missing. Hundreds more are displaced — their houses destroyed or severely damaged.
“People are worried, very worried, very anguished, and a lot of people don’t know if they can go back to their homes,” said Elias Farache, the former president of the Sephardic community in Venezuela and a former leader of the Venezuelan Zionist Federation.
“It’s the club, so people feel very comfortable in this place,” he added, explaining that the tight-knit community has found comfort in gathering together.
Mishkin says Venezuela’s Jews have been in dire straits for years. Before the earthquake, more than 300 Jewish families received food and medicine through local Jewish organizations such as Keren Ezra, which receives support from international partners, including the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee, commonly known as the Joint.
Under normal circumstances, Keren Ezra distributes staples such as raw chicken, rice and other groceries. Now, many families no longer have kitchens, so Keren Ezra has been distributing tuna, rice, crackers, cookies, coffee and other emergency supplies to people seeking shelter at Hebraica. Hundreds of displaced people are relying on the organization’s reserves.
“We’re trying to manage the problems as they come, because to be hysterical doesn’t help,” said Syma Farache, a Caracas-based community member and the director of Keren Ezra. “We do have products in stock for emergencies. We buy them four months in advance, but now we realize it’s not enough because we didn’t expect this.”
Several Israeli and international Jewish organizations are working to send aid and rescue teams to Venezuela. Because Israel does not maintain an embassy or consulate in the country (former President Hugo Chávez severed diplomatic ties with Israel in 2009), Jewish community leaders are also coordinating with Venezuelan authorities to facilitate the arrival of these personnel. The first of these organizations began arriving on Friday, with the Jewish humanitarian organization CADENA reaching Venezuela, and an Israeli rescue team expected to arrive on Sunday. Others, including IsraAID and the Joint, remain on standby until Caracas’ airport reopens.
Farache said while there is no shortage of supplies yet, there could be if the airport does not open soon.
For now, community leaders are trying desperately to maintain a sense of normalcy. On Friday, they purchased mattresses so evacuees would no longer have to sleep in their cars or on beach chairs. A rabbi plans to spend Shabbat at the community center, while volunteers prepare cholent, the traditional Shabbat stew, to feed the displaced. Early next week, organizers hope to open a communal kitchen for those who cannot afford to purchase meals.

But addressing the immediate aftermath is only the beginning. Hundreds of displaced people will need housing
“Now everybody here is safe,” Mishkin said. “We’re feeding a few families, and we’re trying to make do, but this is a very poor community.”
He recalled that Venezuela’s Jewish community was once among Latin America’s most prosperous. The community has declined sharply over the past two decades, from a peak of 30,000, as part of a broader exodus that saw 7 million people leave the country due to political, economic and social challenges, including rising antisemitism.
The economy has seen a slight upturn since U.S. forces removed Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro in January, but day-to-day life for most residents remains a struggle. Community institutions have continued to serve members and adapt to the new reality, all while struggling to raise money for social services.
“We used to be a donor community. We sent money all over the world,” Mishkin said. “After 25 years of a complicated country, we have an elderly and not economically prosperous community. Most of the people whose houses are severely damaged are not going to be able to afford to fix them.”
Without property insurance, many families will have few options. Many also lost their businesses.
“They cannot stay on a mattress forever,” Mishkin said. “They cannot afford, on their own, the repairs or a new place to live. That’s our main concern—how to help these families have a decent place to live.”
The post For Venezuela’s historic Jewish community, the earthquake is a crisis they can’t afford appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Texas creates required reading list that includes Anne Frank and the Bible
(JTA) — Texas instituted on Friday the nation’s first-ever statewide K-12 required reading list for public schools. Students in public schools will soon be required to read Anne Frank’s diary and a host of Bible passages, along with other Jewish- and Holocaust-related texts.
The decision has drawn vigorous objections from some of the state’s Jews. Several local rabbis and other Jewish leaders pushed back on the proposal during the public comment period in the lead-up to the vote this week because of concerns including injecting Christian content into the schools.
In a vote Friday of nine to five, the Republican-controlled state education board approved the list, mandating reading selections usually left to individual schools and teachers. The curriculum will go into effect in 2030 and apply to the roughly 5.5 million schoolchildren in Texas public schools.
The move comes as the board has increasingly sought to incorporate Christianity into the state’s public schools, including in 2024 when it approved an optional Bible curriculum for elementary schools that drew pushback from Jewish parents and advocates. Last year, Republican lawmakers in the state also required the display of the Ten Commandments in every public school classroom.
The passage of the reading list follows an effort by the state’s conservative education leaders to reverse a nationwide decline in the number of books read or assigned in class and exercise control over the texts students are exposed to.
In recent years, Texas has been at the forefront of the national wave of book removals, with several districts pulling books about the Holocaust and Jewish history, including versions of Anne Frank’s diary. Decisions by the state education board have historically had an effect on schools nationwide, in part because of the vast population of school age students in the state.
The new reading list, which spans over 150 titles, includes Elie Wiesel’s Holocaust memoir “Night”; Lois Lowry’s young-reader Holocaust novel “Number the Stars”; George Washington’s letter to a Rhode Island synagogue in 1790, and the “original edition” of Frank’s diary. Conservatives, including in Texas, have objected to a graphic novel version that illustrates passages in which the diarist describes her sexual longings.
Other books on the list include “Charlotte’s Web” by E. B. White and “Animal Farm” by George Orwell.
Beginning in the fourth grade, students will also be required to read numerous passages from both the Hebrew Bible and New Testament, a requirement that has drawn fierce opposition from some Texas Jewish leaders.
Board members continued to propose last-minute additions to the list right up until the vote Friday afternoon, adding the Biblical parable Jonah and the Whale to the first grade curriculum.
The final reading list was pared down from roughly 300 texts after the board initially discussed the proposal in February. At the time, state education board leaders told JTA that they had consulted with experts including the Texas Holocaust, Genocide, and Antisemitism Advisory Commission, a state government body.
On Monday, a host of rabbis and Jewish leaders attended a Board of Education meeting to voice their opposition to the reading list, including Joshua Fixler, a rabbi at Houston’s Reform Congregation Emanu El.
“There is a difference between teaching about religion and teaching religion, and these texts are going to put Texas teachers in the position of teaching religion to our kids,” Fixler told JTA following Friday’s vote.
Fixler said he believed the required reading list would cause children of all faiths to feel “alienated and isolated” because they would “see the state endorsement of one particular religious tradition.”
Fixler particularly objected to “Night” being part of the same eighth-grade unit as chapter three of the Book of Lamentations, which discusses the destruction of Solomon’s Temple in Jerusalem as God’s punishment for the sins of the Jews.
“To associate that with a Holocaust text like Elie Wiesel’s classic work of ‘Night’ is to imply that the Jews might in some way be responsible for the Holocaust,” Fixler, who has three children in Texas public schools, explained.
Rabbi Neil F. Blumofe, the senior rabbi of Conservative Congregation Agudas Achim in Austin, said that he was concerned that the list’s focus on Holocaust-based text would reduce students’ understanding of Jewish history.
“If one only teaches the Jewish civilization or religion as catastrophe-based, I think that that gives a narrow focus, and also can cause issues of what Judaism is and what its relevancy is currently versus what it used to be in the past,” Blumofe said.
Blumofe added that he had “yet to see an effective curriculum or teacher’s guide or ways to sensitively recognize that these are works of civilization versus works of a particular theology.”
Laney Hawes, the co-founder of Texas Freedom to Read Project, told JTA that she was “seething” over the result of Friday’s vote.
“The lists are promoting a singular narrow ideology,” Hawes said, adding that while proponents of the required reading stressed that it promoted “Judeo-Christian values,” she believed it excluded Jewish perspectives.
“I want my children to have a worldview that is vast and diverse,” Hawes, who is not Jewish, said. “If they’re going to be forced to read certain books, I want those books to represent a plethora of perspectives, not just one world view.”
Fixler and Hawes said that they planned to gather with other local advocates to consider ways to fight the new curriculum. For Fixler, he hoped the outcome would emphasize for others the importance of voting in school board elections.
“I think that this should be a wake-up call to people who have been sleeping about the ways in which Christian nationalism is shaping policy on local, state and federal levels,” he said.
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post Texas creates required reading list that includes Anne Frank and the Bible appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
The biggest Jewish issue in New York’s most Jewish primary wasn’t really Israel
Much of the pro-Israel world seems to have seen New York’s Tuesday Democratic primaries as bad for the Jews. When it comes to at least one race, that perspective needs revising.
Yes, Brad Lander, who is highly critical of Israel, defeated the AIPAC-backed incumbent Rep. Dan Goldman in NY-10 — which, according to the Jewish Electorate Institute, boasts the second-highest number of Jewish voters of any district in the country. But seeing that result as “bad for the Jews” misunderstands what the candidates, both of whom are Jewish and self-professed Zionists, were arguing about.
Both are motivated by a profound wish to protect Jews in the United States from rising hatred. Both understand how high the stakes are. What divided them was the question of how to govern well for Jews — a new iteration of a dispute between two robust strains of Jewish thought that extend deep into our shared history.
Both Lander and Goldman ran on their Jewish identities and built explicit plans for confronting antisemitism into their pitches to voters.
Goldman called himself a “proud Zionist,” and told the NY Jewish Week “I do think there is an undercurrent of antisemitism in the degree to which AIPAC seems to be vilified,” even as he said he’d pushed AIPAC to be more willing to criticize the Israeli government.
Lander, upon winning by an almost two-to-one margin, told supporters, “I will be one of the Jewish members of Congress most willing to stand up for Palestinian human rights, and I will stand firmly against bigotry aimed at Jews. Those are not two different jobs. They are the same job.”
Both men accepted, as a starting premise, that antisemitism is rising and real. What they disagreed about was where the danger is concentrated, and which set of political alliances will actually help contain it.
Goldman focused on concerns about the political left’s tendency to treat Zionism as suspect. He prioritized standing with Israel, staying close to its institutional defenders, and refusing to let the loudest progressive critics define what counts as acceptable Jewish politics.
Lander, instead, argued that conflating support for the Israeli government with Jewish safety leaves Jews exposed if and when that government’s policies become impossible to defend. His strategy: decouple Jewish identity from Israeli state policy, ally with the growing progressive coalition in New York politics, and fight antisemitism from inside that coalition’s ranks rather than outside and against it.
Both of these approaches draw from recognizable, longstanding strains of American Jewish thought. Goldman hewed to the camp of covenantal loyalty first and foremost to the Jewish people, and, by extension, to Israel as a sacred trust. And Lander hewed to the camp of universalist ethics and solidarity with the marginalized.
To call one of those stances worse for Jews than the other ignores the historical truth that both are deeply grounded in American Jewish life. But there is something potentially troubling for Jews about this contest: the evident truth, which it displayed, that the rift between these two schools of American Judaism is widening rather than closing.
That split isn’t really about the state of Israel. It’s a much older argument inside Jewish thought, about whether Jewish ethics point outward or inward first.
The universalist strand understands much of the Hebrew Bible, and centuries of subsequent commentary, as promoting the idea that justice is owed to everyone. It lives by the instruction to remember that we were once strangers in Egypt and the commandment that the same law applies to the stranger as to the native-born. It follows the prophets who reserved their harshest words not for the Jewish people’s enemies, but for that people’s own failures to protect the poor and the powerless.
According to this reading, Jews must practice solidarity with anyone suffering. A Jewish politics that didn’t extend itself to advocating for Palestinians, immigrants, or any other group facing state violence would be failing the tradition rather than honoring it.
The particularist strand reads the same texts and the same history and draws an opposite lesson: that universalism without a prior, unapologetic loyalty to one’s own people is exactly the moral posture that left Jews undefended for most of their history. This strand sees that loyalty as a structural condition that allows Jewish communal survival. To its gaze, a Jewish politics that can’t put Jewish safety first, especially after the Hamas attack of Oct. 7, has lost its way.
What makes the tension between these stances difficult to resolve is that both readings are genuinely supported by the textual and historical record, which is long and varied enough to furnish ammunition for either side without anyone needing to misquote it.
Goldman and Lander didn’t invent this fight. They just gave New York’s most Jewish congressional district a chance to vote on it again, in a fresh context, with the war in Gaza standing in for whatever the live test case happened to be a generation ago — and whatever it will be will be in the next crisis in Jewish history.
That divide is part of why framing progressive victories on New York’s primary night as a loss for Jews flattens something more interesting happening inside NY-10 specifically. This election was a fight between two Jewish candidates, on some of the most Jewish terrain in the entire country, with each offering a fully worked-out theory of how to keep Jews safe, and each able to point to real receipts.
That is not a fight over whether Jews matter in New York politics. It is a fight over which of two coalitions — one anchored to Israel and institutional Jewish groups, and one tied to the multiracial progressive coalition reshaping the city — is the safer harbor for American Jews going forward.
It’s fair to be concerned about how bitter that fight seems to be becoming. But it’s also fair to celebrate the fact that Jewish life can still maintain such rich ideological diversity. This was a constructive political race conducted between Jews, waged substantially in Jewish terms, over which political strategy actually protects Jewish life in a moment when antisemitism is on the rise. It’s arguable that to have the choice between candidates like Goldman and Lander, who take their own Jewishness seriously enough to fight about what it should mean in American politics, is actually very good for the Jews.
The post The biggest Jewish issue in New York’s most Jewish primary wasn’t really Israel appeared first on The Forward.

