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
Canada Sees Record Surge in Antisemitic Incidents for Second Consecutive Year, New Report Finds
A member of law enforcement personnel works at the scene outside the US Consulate after shots were fired, in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, March 10, 2026. Picture taken with a mobile phone. Photo: REUTERS/Kyaw Soe Oo
Antisemitic incidents in Canada surged to a record high in 2025 for the second consecutive year, with 6,800 acts of anti-Jewish hate reported nationwide, underscoring a persistently hostile climate for Jews and Israelis across the country, according to newly released data.
On Monday, the Jewish advocacy group B’nai Brith Canada released its annual report on antisemitism documenting a 9.3 percent increase in hate crimes last year, surpassing the previous record total of 6,219 set in 2024.
With an average of 18.6 incidents per day, this latest figure represents a 145.6 percent increase from 2022, before the Hamas-led invasion of and massacre across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.
B’nai Brith Canada CEO Simon Wolle described the findings as a “national crisis,” warning that antisemitism has become increasingly normalized within Canadian society and calling on authorities to confront this rising hatred with stronger, sustained action.
“Our review of the past year’s antisemitic incidents must be understood as a wake-up call,” Wolle said in a statement. “Hate and extremism are a threat to Canadian democracy and civil society, not only to the Jewish community.”
According to the latest data, the report found that antisemitism has “metastasized” across all aspects of Canadian life, with the vast majority — 92 percent — of recorded incidents occurring in digital spaces, including 6,248 cases of online harassment.
Among the recorded cases, there were also 10 incidents of violence, 299 cases of vandalism, and 243 incidents of real-world harassment.
Online platforms have also seen a rise in Holocaust denial, with artificial intelligence being used to fabricate and distort historical narratives.
While geopolitical tensions in the Middle East have contributed to the surge, the report warns that antisemitism has moved beyond the “radical fringes,” pointing to troubling trends on university campuses and in public schools, where Jewish students and faculty increasingly report feeling vulnerable.
The trend appears to be continuing into 2026, with several high-profile attacks — including gunfire directed at three synagogues in Toronto last month, alongside vandalism targeting businesses and physical assaults — signaling an ongoing escalation of violence.
Richard Robertson, director of research and advocacy at B’nai Brith Canada, said many who describe themselves as “anti-Zionists” are in fact reviving long-standing tropes used to dehumanize Jewish people, warning that such narratives are increasingly being normalized in mainstream discourse.
“The fact of the matter is that when it becomes acceptable, and even popular, to demonize Zionists, Jewish communities suffer,” Robertson said in a statement.
This latest report came after Canada’s Senate last week released a separate assessment offering a comprehensive roadmap to counter rising Jew-hatred, calling for expanded law enforcement resources to investigate hate crimes, strengthened Holocaust education, and the implementation of digital literacy programs for youth.
Uncategorized
Smith College to Hold Talks With Students for Justice in Palestine Following Unauthorized Encampment
The “People’s University” encampment, established by Students for Justice in Palestine, on the campus of Smith College in April 2024. Photo: Screenshot
Smith College in Northampton, Massachusetts has granted Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) a meeting with high-level officials in exchange for the group’s ending an unauthorized encampment established on campus to protest the board of trustees’ decision to reject a proposal inspired by the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel.
On April 18, SJP commandeered the Chapin Lawn and renamed it “The People’s University.” Armed with a litany of demands calling for “restructuring” Smith’s governance of its endowment, transferring power over the institution from administrators to faculty and students, and a “required course on race” informed by the divisive critical race theory discipline, the students initially vowed to dwell in the encampment indefinitely.
Over seven days, SJP hosted a series of anti-Israel themed events on “Palestinian resistance,” “Indigenous resistance,” and “organizing.” On other days, the group filled time with “listening sessions” and even provided dinner, suggesting that the encampment received financial support sufficient to feed dozens of college students. However, the mounting presence of public safety officers around the encampment site and little indication that the demonstration held the drawing power of encampments of previous academic years prompted SJP to consider settling for less than it wanted.
Additionally, the college had notified the group of being in violation of campus policies on peaceful assembly and threatened SJP with disciplinary sanctions, which the group described as “fear tactics.” Tamra Bates, director of student engagement, personally told the students they would be punished as “individuals” and, the group added, public safety officers addressed “at least one student” by their “full name.” After three days, paranoia took hold of the organizers, and they issued a prohibition on photography “at any time … especially of people’s faces.”
SJP ultimately agreed to enter negotiations with the college over email, a process which concluded with Smith College agreeing to hold a meeting with the group and college trustees “before the end of the semester.” The students decamped on Saturday.
Smith College has not responded to The Algemeiner‘s inquiry regarding the substance of the deal.
As previously reported, Smith College became one of the latest higher education institutions to see a class between anti-Zionists and administrators over institutional ties to Israel as college trustees neared a vote on what SJP titled the “ethical investment” proposal. Brimming with falsehoods, the document accused Israel of the crime of “femi-genocide,” which SJP described as “sexual and reproductive violence” and mass murder perpetrated against Palestinian women and girls. The enterprise continues a pattern of depicting Israel, the most progressive country in the Middle East, as a foe of left-wing causes and an enemy of liberalism.
Additionally, the proposal called on Smith to withdraw investments in armaments manufacturers while arguing that divestment from Israel is a prelude to divesting from fossil fuels, a subtle but common tactic in which far-left groups place Jews and Zionists at the center of an array of alleged conflicts and social maladies.
“Militarism and the use of explosive weaponry has a devastating impact on our climate: military carbon emissions from the ongoing occupation and genocide of Palestinians exceeds that of several countries combined,” the proposal said. “We face interconnected human rights crises at home and abroad that jeopardize our immigrant and international students, faculty, staff, and community members. Broader patterns of forced displacement are inseparable from climate change, and are fueled by a longer history of neoliberalization, securitization, and colonization.”
Citing fiduciary concerns, virtually all colleges asked to adopt BDS have rejected it.
In March 2025, Bowdoin College in Brunswick, Maine did so when its Board of Trustees voted to accept the counsel of a committee that recommended maintaining investment practices which safeguard the institution’s financial health and educational mission. In a report authored by the college’s Ad Hoc Committee on Investments and Responsibility, it said, “Interventions in the management of the endowment that are rooted in moral or political considerations should be exceedingly rare and restricted to those cases where there is near-universal consensus among Bowdoin’s community of stakeholders.”
Boston University rejected divestment the previous month, with its president, Melissa Gilliam, saying, “The endowment is no longer the vehicle for political debate; nevertheless, I will continue to seek ways that members of our community can engage with each other on political issues of our day including the conflict in the Middle East.”
Adopting divestment proposals dictated by anti-Zionist groups is a recipe for squandering tens of billions of dollars in endowment returns, according to a report published in September 2024 by the JLens investment network, an arm of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL).
Titled “The Impact of Israel Divestment on Equity Portfolios: Forecasting BDS’s Financial Toll on University Endowments,” the report said BDS would incinerate $33.21 billion of future returns for the 100 largest university endowments over the next 10 years, with Harvard University losing $2.5 billion and the University of Texas losing $2.2 billion. Other schools would forfeit over $1 billion in growth, including the University of Pennsylvania, Stanford University, and Princeton University. For others, such as the University of Michigan and Dartmouth College, the damages would total in the hundreds of millions.
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
Uncategorized
Jewish Groups Blast Mamdani for Vetoing Bill to Limit Protests Near Schools
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani holds a press conference at the New York City Office of Emergency Management, as a major winter storm spreads across a large swath of the United States, in Brooklyn, New York City, US, Jan. 25, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Bing Guan
Major Jewish organizations are sharply criticizing New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani after he vetoed a bill aimed at limiting protests near schools, condemning the mayor for what they argue is a failure to protect Jewish students at a time of rising antisemitism.
The legislation, which passed the City Council with bipartisan support, would have created buffer zones around educational institutions to prevent obstruction, intimidation, and disruption during demonstrations. Supporters said the measure was a direct response to recent protests outside Jewish schools and community spaces that have left students feeling unsafe.
In statements following the veto, several Jewish advocacy groups said the mayor’s decision sends the wrong message amid a surge in antisemitic incidents across the city. They warned that without additional safeguards, Jewish students could remain vulnerable to harassment and disruption near their schools.
A group of leading Jewish organizations subsequently released a statement condemning the veto, saying they were “deeply disappointed” with the decision.
“This legislation represented a crucial step toward ensuring that every school and community institution can be better protected,” read the statement from UJA-Federation of New York, ADL New York/New Jersey, AJC New York, Conference of Presidents, JCRC-NY, New York Board of Rabbis, Orthodox Union, The Rabbinical Assembly, StandWithUs, Teach NYS, and the Union for Reform Judaism.
City Council Speaker Julie Menin condemned Mamdani’s veto.
“Ensuring students can enter and exit their schools without fear of harassment or intimidation should not be controversial,” Menin said.
New York City Councilmember Eric Dinowitz similarly criticized Mamdani, saying in a statement that the mayor had undercut his campaign promise to ensure the safety of Jewish New Yorkers.
“The mayor promised to keep New Yorkers safe and increase police transparency,” Dinowitz said. “By vetoing this bill, he is breaking yet another campaign promise.”
Jews for Racial and Economic Justice, a far-left and fringe anti-Zionist group, released a statement framing Mamdani’s veto as a victory for free speech rights.
The group wrote that Mamdani “further demonstrated his commitment to protecting New Yorkers’ First Amendment rights, and his refusal to endorse what is quite simply bad policy.”
“The ‘buffer zone’ bills are not about keeping New Yorkers safe. They are about silencing our voices,” the organization continued. “That they do so under the auspices of combating antisemitism doesn’t just add insult to injury; it actively endangers Jews. At best, these bills change little. At worst, they divide and silence New Yorkers and contribute to the broader political climate targeting protestors.”
Mamdani defended his decision, arguing that the bill’s language was overly broad and could infringe on constitutionally protected protest rights. He said the definition of educational institutions could extend beyond K-12 schools to include universities, museums, and other public-facing institutions, potentially restricting a wide range of demonstrations unrelated to antisemitism.
“As the bill is written, everywhere from universities to museums to teaching hospitals could face restrictions,” Mamdani said. “This could impact workers protesting ICE [US Immigration and Customs Enforcement], or college students demanding their school divest from fossil fuels, or demonstrating in support of Palestinian rights.”
The mayor also pointed to existing laws that already prohibit harassment, threats, and obstruction, suggesting the proposed measure was unnecessary and legally vulnerable.
Still, critics say those protections are insufficient in the current climate. They argue that recent demonstrations, particularly those tied to tensions over the Israel-Hamas war, have at times crossed into intimidation, and that clearer boundaries are needed to ensure student safety.
The backlash has put Mamdani at odds with some Democratic lawmakers and community leaders who had supported the bill. While he allowed a separate measure strengthening protections around houses of worship to become law, opponents say excluding schools from similar safeguards leaves a critical gap.
Skeptics also claim that the veto undercuts Mamdani’s previous vow to protect the local Jewish community amid a surge in antisemitic hate crimes in the Big Apple.
Mamdani, a far-left democratic socialist and anti-Zionist, is an avid supporter of boycotting all Israeli-tied entities who has been widely accused of promoting antisemitic rhetoric. He has repeatedly accused Israel of “apartheid” and “genocide”; refused to recognize the country’s right to exist as a Jewish state; and refused to explicitly condemn the phrase “globalize the intifada,” which has been associated with calls for violence against Jews and Israelis worldwide.
Leading members of the Jewish community in New York have expressed alarm about Mamdani’s victory, fearing what may come in a city already experiencing a surge in antisemitic hate crimes.
The City Council could attempt to override the veto, though it would need to secure additional votes to reach a two-thirds majority.
The dispute highlights a broader national debate over how to respond to rising antisemitism while preserving First Amendment protections, as protests tied to global conflicts continue to unfold across the United States. For many Jewish leaders, however, the issue in New York is immediate and personal, and they say the mayor’s decision falls short of the moment.
