Uncategorized
Mamdani says Hamas should ‘lay down their arms’ as Israel, Gaza and antisemitism reign in NYC mayoral debate
A day after deflecting questions on Fox News about whether Hamas should “lay down their weapons and leave the leadership in Gaza,” New York City mayoral frontrunner Zohran Mamdani offered an answer.
“Of course I believe that they should lay down their arms,” Mamdani said. “I’m proud to be one of the first elected officials in the state who called for a ceasefire, and calling for a ceasefire means ceasing fire. That means all parties have to cease fire and put down their weapons.”
Mamdani’s comment came as the city’s three main mayoral candidates convened Thursday night for the first general election debate, which focused extensively on Jewish issues including Israel and antisemitism.
Mamdani, a democratic socialist who is the Democratic nominee, faced questions about his views on Israel, Hamas and whether Jewish New Yorkers could count on him to combat antisemitism. As he has throughout the campaign, he sharply criticized Israel, following his response about Hamas to harshly criticizing Israel’s actions in Gaza, both before and after Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023 attack.
“The reason that we call for that [ceasefire] is not only for an end of the genocide, but also an unimpeded access of humanitarian aid,” he said. “I, like many New Yorkers, am hopeful that this ceasefire will hold. I’m hopeful that it is durable. I’m hopeful that it’s just.”
He continued, “And for it to be just, we also have to be hopeful that it addresses the conditions that preceded this — conditions like occupation, like the siege and apartheid.”
Unlike the Democratic primary debates, during which Mamdani was an underdog candidate, the Queens state Assembly member was the favorite this time around. His opponents, former Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Republican Curtis Sliwa (sans his trademark red beret), repeatedly challenged his ability to represent Jewish New Yorkers.
“Jews don’t trust that you are going to be there for them when they are victims of antisemitic attacks,” Sliwa charged.
“I agree, by the way,” Cuomo chimed in, in a rare moment of unity.
Cuomo, who is polling second and has garnered endorsements from several Jewish groups since Mayor Eric Adams dropped out, said, “There are a lot of Jewish New Yorkers who support me because they think you’re antisemitic.”
Asked if he agreed with those accusations, Cuomo said, “I don’t make those judgements about people — are you a racist? Are you an antisemite?” But Cuomo pointed to Mamdani “not condemning ‘globalize the intifada’” as a reason that some Jewish New Yorkers hold that belief.
Mamdani, who has drawn criticism for declining to condemn the phrase, spoke about his conversations with Jewish New Yorkers that eventually led him to “discourage” its, which he added that he himself does not use.
“It’s in those conversations that I learned that this phrase evokes many painful memories — memories of bus attacks in Haifa, restaurant attacks in Jerusalem,” he said, repeating comments he has made before. “I heard from a rabbi about their roommate who was killed on one of those buses.”
The candidates spoke about Jewish safety amid rising antisemitism.
Sliwa touted his record of protecting Jewish communities with the Guardian Angels during the Crown Heights riots in 1991 and in Williamsburg in 2019 following a series of assaults on Orthodox Jews.
Cuomo attacked Mamdani for what he characterized as his declining to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, and called the Democratic nominee a “divisive personality.” (Mamdani countered that he has said “time and time again” that he recognizes Israel’s right to exist, but “would not recognize any state’s right to exist with a system of hierarchy on the basis of race or religion,” pointing to Saudi Arabia as another example.)
Mamdani, meanwhile, said he will “be a mayor who finally addresses” Jewish New Yorkers’ fear of living in the city, “not through the theatrics of politics on this stage, but through action.”
“I’ll do that by ensuring that we have police officers outside synagogues on the High Holy Days,” Mamdani said, before the moderator moved to the next question.
Mamdani and Cuomo spent much of the debate trading barbs, while Sliwa sought to stand out from Cuomo as the best challenger to Mamdani. Sliwa was complimentary of Trump’s peace deal between Israel and Hamas, saying the president “should’ve been applauded.”
“Give credit where credit’s due — he’s brought peace to Gaza,” Sliwa said.
Cuomo countered that he did “applaud President Trump and his administration” for the deal, but positioned himself as the best candidate to take on Trump.
“You’re not going to stand up to Donald Trump,” Cuomo said to Sliwa. He then used a Yiddish term to get his point across to Mamdani: “And you can’t stand up to Donald Trump, who’d knock him right on his tuches.”
One rare point of overlap between Mamdani and Cuomo was that they each spoke positively of police commissioner Jessica Tisch, who is Jewish. Both have indicated openness to having her remain on the job.
“I agree with Commissioner Tisch in that we do not need the National Guard here in New York City,” Mamdani said.
Cuomo, meanwhile, said, “I think Commissioner Tisch is doing a very good job, I would trust her,” when explaining why he, unlike Mamdani, would leave the commissioner on the Civilian Complaint Review Board.
The candidates were each questioned about whether they would boycott any of the city’s many parades. While Cuomo and Sliwa both insisted that they would not boycott any, Mamdani sidestepped the question.
“There are many parades that I would not be attending because I’d be focusing on the work of leading the city,” Mamdani said, though he declined to specify which ones he would miss.
New York City mayors have historically attended the city’s annual Israel parade; Mamdani has not commented about whether he would attend the parade as mayor. His campaign has indicated that he would not seek to prevent the parade, a fear that some pro-Israel New Yorkers have expressed.
Mamdani was also asked about whether he would continue to participate in pro-Palestinian protests, as he did in the months after Oct. 7 while serving in the State Assembly.
“If I’m elected, I’ll be the mayor,” Mamdani responded. “And I’ll be leading the city from City Hall.”
—
The post Mamdani says Hamas should ‘lay down their arms’ as Israel, Gaza and antisemitism reign in NYC mayoral debate appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
‘A Bushy Beard and Easy Smile’: Western Media’s Grotesque Framing of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s Death
A woman holds a poster with the picture of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as people gather after Khamenei was killed in Israeli and U.S. strikes on Saturday, in Tehran, Iran, March 1, 2026. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was only the second Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran. He assumed power in 1989 following the death of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, and ruled for decades as the ultimate authority over a regime defined by repression, regional destabilization, and violent ideological extremism.
His tenure was marked by:
- The systematic crushing of political dissent
- The imprisonment, torture, and execution of dissidents
- The violent suppression of nationwide protest movements
- The arming and financing of proxy militias across the Middle East
- The institutionalization of chants of “Death to America” and repeated threats to destroy Israel
Under his leadership, Iran’s security forces opened fire on protesters during successive waves of unrest in 2009, 2019, and during the nationwide demonstrations that followed the death of Mahsa Amini in 2022. In January of this year, fresh nationwide protests were again met with force.
Independent analysts estimate that at least 30,000 people were killed in the crackdown, a figure the regime has never credibly refuted. Across these cycles of repression, human rights organizations have documented thousands more deaths and tens of thousands detained.
Yet when Iranian state media confirmed Khamenei’s death nearly 24 hours after US and Israeli airstrikes struck his compound in Tehran, segments of Western media coverage adopted a tone that bordered on reverential.
The most notable example appeared in The Washington Post, which described Khamenei as known for his “bushy white beard and easy smile,” noting that he cut a “more avuncular figure in public” than his predecessor. The obituary highlighted his fondness for Persian poetry and classic Western novels, including Victor Hugo’s Les Misérables.
The New York Times summarized him as a “hardline cleric” who had made “Iran a regional power” while maintaining hostility toward the United States and Israel.
Sky News labeled him the “arch foe” of President Donald Trump, framing the moment as a personal rivalry.
The Wall Street Journal observed that he “nurtured the country’s global ambitions but struggled at home with a withering economy.” Reuters referred to his “fiery ambitions” toward Israel and the United States. The BBC aired images of mourners drawn from regime-controlled broadcasts with little scrutiny of their staging.
Across outlets, the pattern was consistent.
The man who presided over decades of repression was reframed through aesthetic detail and political positioning. His beard. His smile. His literary tastes. His “ambitions.”
His victims were secondary.
This is not about demanding polemics from obituary writers. It is about proportion.
When authoritarian rulers die, the moral weight of their record should not be softened by lifestyle detail or neutralized by euphemism. Calling a regime ideologue a “hardliner” obscures the reality that he headed a theocratic state apparatus that jailed journalists, executed political prisoners, funded Hezbollah and Hamas, and ordered violent crackdowns against his own people.
Headlines shape historical memory. The first paragraph matters more than the 12th. In death, reputations are distilled and authoritarian rulers should not be granted the luxury of dilution.
So while newspapers fawned over what they chose to highlight, from his wry smile to his love of literature and carefully cultivated image, the rest of us should remember him for what he was: a brutal dictator who deserved the fiery end he met.
The author is a contributor to HonestReporting, a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.
Uncategorized
Hezbollah Opens a Second Front and Israel Gets the Blame
Smoke billows after an Israeli strike on Beirut’s southern suburbs, following an escalation between Hezbollah and Israel amid the US-Israeli conflict with Iran, Lebanon, March 2, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Mohamed Azakir
While the question of whether or when war between Israel and Iran would break out, so too was the question of whether Iran’s proxy Hezbollah would join the fight and act as a layer of protection for the Iranian regime.
Since Hezbollah and Israel agreed to a ceasefire in November 2024, the terrorist organization has worked to rebuild its infrastructure and regain its status as Iran’s strongest terrorist proxy in the Middle East. In doing so, it has consistently and relentlessly broken the ceasefire, committing at least 1,925 violations up to near the end of 2025.
The threat posed by Hezbollah has been greatly diminished after the year-long war, as Israel destroyed much of its infrastructure and forces, thus stripping the terrorist organization of its ability to conduct large-scale operations it was once capable of. But the danger persists.
Hezbollah still maintains considerable political influence inside Lebanon, which results in direct leverage over policies and daily life in Lebanese society. It has effectively been recognized as a state within a state, threatening the very existence of the Lebanese state itself. For this reason, Lebanon has failed to fully disarm Hezbollah, despite the Lebanese Army’s claim that the first stage in the process was completed.
Since its inception, Iran has funded Hezbollah, making the organization the most prominent proxy in Iran’s regional power structure. In fact, Hassan Nasrallah, the late leader who was killed in an Israeli airstrike in September 2024, had referred to himself as a “soldier” in the Iranian regime’s army. Thus, Israeli and US intentions to collapse the Iranian regime are a direct threat to the very foundation on which Hezbollah is built.
Despite repeated warnings by Israel not to join the fight (as well as the pleas from Lebanon’s fragile government), in the early hours of Monday morning, Hezbollah fired rockets towards Israel. This marked the first time since the full-scale war with Hezbollah that the terrorist organization fired rockets into Israeli territory.
Similar to Hezbollah’s reaction of launching what it called a “solidarity” front for Hamas following the attacks of October 7, 2023, Hezbollah claimed that the firing of rockets into Israel was “revenge for the blood of the Supreme Leader of the Muslims, Ali Khamenei,” who was killed in an Israeli airstrike on the first day of the war.
Despite even Hezbollah acknowledging it was the party to fire first, the narrative in the media reversed the order of events, referring to Israel’s “attack” on Lebanon as the cause for the widening conflict.
Yet the timeline of events remains abundantly clear: Hezbollah opened a second front in the war — breaking the ceasefire to do so — by firing at least six rockets and two drones.
Immediately after Hezbollah joined the war by attacking Israel, the IDF responded with a series of strikes on Hezbollah targets across Lebanon, including targeting senior leadership. While Israel has responded to previous ceasefire violations, the firing of rockets into Israeli territory crossed a clearly defined red line set by the IDF. As a result, Israel initiated direct kinetic action aimed at further degrading Hezbollah’s operational capabilities and deterring escalation.
Shifting the attention away from Hezbollah’s initiating actions and instead framing Israel’s response as the catalyst for escalation obscures the reality of the war Israel is now fighting on two fronts.
Although the dangers posed by the Iranian regime have been the primary target of the war, Israel’s commitment to deterring and removing the threat of any terrorist actor remains steadfast. When media coverage downplays Hezbollah’s responsibility, Israel’s defensive measures risk being perceived as unprovoked aggression. This reframing not only distorts the sequence of events but also seeks to undermine Israel’s ability to maintain deterrence.
In this war, accurate reporting of terrorist organizations and the sequence of events is not optional — it is essential to understanding the realities shaping the conflict and the decisions that follow.
The author is a contributor to HonestReporting, a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.
Uncategorized
In Gaza, Palestinians and Hamas Now Face a Moment of Choosing
A Hamas Police officer directs traffic in Gaza City, Jan. 28, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Stringer
With Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei now dead, all eyes are naturally on what comes next for the Iranian people, as the Iranian regime veers between desperation and collapse.
The war in Iran is also stoking unease among the Islamic Republic’s proxies, as terror groups like Hamas figure out how to proceed without Iranian support.
Hamas still refuses to disarm — but its situation is growing more perilous.
Prior to Khamenei’s killing, Israel had already struck an unprecedented blow to Hamas’ military infrastructure. Now stripped of its sponsor, Hamas’s weakening posture should leave Palestinians questioning if Hamas really has their best interests at heart.
The strategic and economic opportunities for building a healthy society for its citizens have never been greater.
Less than two weeks before the US military and Israel Defense Forces (IDF) began striking Iran, US President Donald Trump convened the inaugural meeting of the Board of Peace, as member states from nearly 48 nations gathered to discuss the future of Gaza.
Chaired by President Trump, the newly established international body is tasked with overseeing Gaza’s reconstruction and transitional governance.
Trump announced at the summit that the United States would donate $10 billion to the Board, with other countries participating in the rehabilitation of the Gaza Strip contributing an additional $7 billion combined.
In an interview on Fox News’s My View with Lara Trump, Middle East Envoy Steve Witkoff reaffirmed the government’s commitment to “jump-starting” construction in Gaza and plans for a “renaissance” in the seaside area.
After launching the deadliest attack against Jews since the Holocaust, members of the international community are still willing to give Gazans a chance to forge a future rooted in prosperity and dignity.
By dispensing with failed frameworks and outdated Oslo-esque accords, the current US administration is not only creating the conditions for a freer Iran, but it is also unshackling Palestinians from Hamas rule and creating economic enticements to liberate Gazans from their terrorist trappings.
The responsibility now rests with Palestinians to embark on an earnest campaign of deradicalization and abandon their armed struggle against Israel.
It’s worth noting that, to date, much of the history of the region has been driven by an embrace of radicalism and violence.
Following Israel’s 2005 disengagement from Gaza and the eviction of 9,000 Israelis from their homes, billions of dollars in foreign financing flowed from international entities to the Gaza Strip.
The money meant to bolster the lives of Gazans was instead used to foment terror against Israelis.
The latest poll released by People’s Company for Polls and Survey Research (PCPSR) is similarly discouraging and illustrates that “support for Hamas’s decision to launch the [Oct. 7] offensive, while declining from its peak, remains a majority at more than 50 percent, with recent gains in Gaza and sustained high support in the West Bank.”
The goodwill shown to Palestinians by Israelis living in the Gaza envelope — which included numerous peace initiatives and work opportunities — was repaid in blood on October 7, as familiarity and friendship were used as fuel to achieve maniacal aims.
As Palestinians watch what is happening to Iran — a state that trafficked exclusively in terrorism — the Palestinians are now seeing they have their own choice — to choose peace over terrorism, encouraged by economic incentives by the US and the international community.
What happens to Palestinians in Gaza going forward largely depends on their motivation to confront and eliminate their fixation on eradicating Israel, and for their leaders to reorient their energies around building better lives for their citizens.
The Trump administration’s refreshing and untested approach to accelerate Gaza’s recovery is not packaged in empty two-state platitudes but rather wrapped in historic strategic changes and tangible economic benefits to Palestinian society.
Palestinians in Gaza now have the daunting duty of proving their readiness for reform.
For regional stability to be achieved, let’s hope that Palestinians in Gaza renounce their prior path of demonization and terror, and are indeed ready for rational governance that will ultimately yield long-term success for their people.
Irit Tratt is a writer residing in New York. Follow her on X @Irit_Tratt