Do you agree with Zohran Mamdani about Israel?  Are you voting for him next week?

Those are two different questions, and I’m going to make the case that they can have two different answers: No and Yes.

First, let’s do a quick reality check that, outside the Jewish community, this is not what the upcoming mayoral election is about. To his supporters, the Mamdani candidacy is about kitchen-table issues — yes, the buses and the grocery stores, but also taxes and inequality as well as a generational shift in our politics and resistance to the Trump regime’s anti-democratic actions. Mamdani didn’t talk about Israel/Palestine until asked over and over again to do so.

That said, it’s fair for any minority group to focus on issues that affect their community, and for many American Jews, that includes Israel. And, as critics of Mamdani have pointed out, there are ways in which his views on Israel have practical consequences for New York City: how a mayor responds to conflicts and confrontations, how a mayor’s statements encourage or discourage acts of violence, and how a mayor does or doesn’t express the values of the city’s population.

It is also reasonable to disagree with positions Assemblyman Mamdani has taken on issues related to Israel. For example, I personally agree with Mamdani in supporting a Jewish state where all people have equal rights, and I agree that Israel, particularly under its current government, falls well short of that standard. But I disagree that Zionism necessarily entails that inequality, I disagree that incendiary statements (such as ‘globalize the intifada’) are acceptable even if some may have non-violent interpretations of them, and I disagree with many of the principles that the Democratic Socialists of America and Students for Justice in Palestine have espoused.

So, no, I don’t agree with every view this candidate has about Israel and Palestine.

But were I still living in Brooklyn (my family moved to the suburbs three years ago due to the cost of housing, one of Mamdani’s signature issues), I would enthusiastically vote for him. Because not only are there more important issues for New York City and for the country. there are even more important issues for Jews.

First, within a few months, it seems all but certain that the Trump regime will send the National Guard and militarized ICE personnel into New York City as it has done in Los Angeles, Portland and Chicago. Who is going to stand up to this authoritarian militarism?  Andrew Cuomo?  Curtis Sliwa?  New York, and New York’s Jews, need a mayor who will defend what’s left of our democratic society, and stand up for all those who are unfairly targeted, who are deported without due process, or who are abused in state custody.

(Arguably, the election of Mamdani, whom Trump falsely calls a ‘communist’, might enrage the president still further. But it would be reprehensible to cower in the face of an authoritarian strongman and foolish to hope that a disreputable, dishonest collaborator like Cuomo would keep us safe from him.)

Again, this is a matter of Jewish concern specifically. New York Jews are overwhelmingly liberal, and overwhelmingly anti-Trump. The regime has already targeted several high-profile Jewish organizations and already stated that the entire Democratic party is a domestic extremist organization. For God’s sake, where do you think that leaves us?

Personally, I am far more afraid of Trump’s militias, the white supremacists in own party, and the “lone wolf” antisemitic vigilantes who almost always happen to be angry young right-wing men than I am of a supposedly anti-Israel mayor of New York City.

And then there’s Mamdani’s circle of Jewish advisors and confidantes, including my former city councilman, Brad Lander. When Mayor Mamdani has to make tough judgment calls about issues that affect the Jewish community, I have confidence that Lander and other associates, not to mention the rabbis whose synagogues Mamdani visited over the high holidays, will represent our concerns and that Mamdani will hear them.

Meanwhile, the Cuomo campaign (and many of its Jewish supporters) has indulged in outright racism, spreading noxious bigotry. This kind of Trumpist politics is ugly, it is immoral, and it fans the flames of prejudice that is often directed at Jews. Yet nowhere in the letter signed by over a thousand rabbis (most of him, like me, not residents of New York City) did I see a single word condemning it. (On the contrary, the letter spread further calumnies against Mamdani, insinuating that he has not condemned antisemitic rhetoric, which he has, numerous times.) This is exactly the kind of sewer politics with which Donald Trump’s populist movement has poisoned the country, and it is dangerous. If a Jewish candidate were subjected to antisemitic rhetoric, we would rightly demand that bigotry be called out. We should be collectively ashamed of our leaders for not doing so here.

Finally, whether we like it or not (and I do not), anti-Zionism has entered the political mainstream – not because of antisemitism, but because of two years of brutal warfare, dehumanizing rhetoric, and humanitarian abuses on the part of the Netanyahu government. Zohran Mamdani is not normalizing anti-Zionism; he is reflecting where tens of millions of Americans already find themselves ideologically. (And again, he is not running on this issue, even secondarily.)  That ship has long since left the harbor.

For that reason, the “No-Yes” option is likely here to stay. American Jews need to learn to disagree with politicians about Israel (just as Israel-first voters have learned to disagree with Christian theocrats in the Trump administration), try to tease apart legitimate Jewish self-determination from the Jewish supremacy politics of Israel’s Right, and work with our imperfect allies toward the common good.

That common good includes basic issues of affordability and economic fairness (which is why so any billionaires are spending huge sums to help Cuomo). It includes freedom of speech and due process of law, which protect minorities like ours from the tyranny of the majority. And it includes the kind of country we want to live in, the kind of people we want to be. I may disagree with Mamdani about Zionism, but I have not a scintilla of doubt that we agree on these fundamental issues, and that those fundamentals are the most important questions for Jews, New Yorkers, and Americans.

Vote No-Yes.

The post Zohran Mamdani: The no-yes option appeared first on The Forward.

(JTA) — For progressive Jews in New York City, the presence on the ballot of one of their own in June’s mayoral primary offered a moment of great excitement.

Brad Lander galvanized many progressive Jewish leaders, and polls found that he outperformed among Jewish voters, drawing about 20% of their first-choice votes on the ranked ballots, compared to 11% of voters citywide.

Lander cross-endorsed Zohran Mamdani, the primary winner, before that vote, and he has since campaigned heavily for the democratic socialist who is leading in all polls. So it might seem self-evident that his Jewish voters would all be backing Mamdani without hesitation. But some of them say they are doing so with misgivings or not doing so at all, in a sign of how fraught the election has been for Jewish voters who are turned off by Mamdani’s strong opposition to Israel.

Jonathan Marcus, a 25-year-old Jewish voter in Manhattan, ranked Lander first in the primary but is casting his vote in the general election for Andrew Cuomo, the former governor who is polling second.

“Someone like Mamdani becoming mayor is, while he won’t explicitly outright say ‘from the river to the sea’ or anything like that, to me, it just enables these protesters,” said Marcus. “For someone who’s going to take their side, being the leader of New York, and it looks like it’s going to happen, I can’t get behind that.”

Richard Goldstein, on the other hand, said he’ll be casting his ballot for Mamdani after ranking Lander first in the primary and leaving Mamdani off. The Jewish former executive editor of the Village Voice, who lives in Greenwich Village, said he had been turned off by Mamdani’s stances on Israel, which he said would be “a recipe for a bloodbath” in the Middle East if fully acted upon.

Because of ranked-choice voting in the primary, “I thought if I put him on the ballot at all, I may end up voting for him, so I left him off,” Goldstein said.

But in the general election, he has decided to give Mamdani his support, after ruling out Cuomo as “truly sleazy” and Republican Curtis Sliwa as “completely inappropriate.” He said he supported most of what Mamdani stands for and believed that Mamdani would not sanction a flourishing of antisemitism, though he said he expected him potentially not to intervene in “radical protests” against Israel.

“This is one of the hardest choices I’ve had to make,” Goldstein said. “I like his program very much. I admire his character. He’s incredibly intelligent and energetic, almost frenetically energetic, which is great in a politician. On the other hand, I really don’t agree with him on Israel. I’m not a Zionist either, I just want Israel to survive.”

Rabbi Jill Jacobs also openly backed Lander in the primary without offering similar support for Mamdani. While she declined to offer more details about her personal vote, last week she urged her followers for the first time to take Mamdani seriously, in the face of a groundswell of opposition from rabbis around the country.

“Was Mamdani my favorite candidate? No (I think everyone knows that was Brad Lander),” wrote Jacobs, the CEO of T’ruah: The Rabbinic Call for Human Rights, in a Facebook post, adding that she was unconvinced that Mamdani, who is 34 and lacks executive experience, could “run a huge, complicated city.”

But she said she believed there was evidence that Mamdani had learned from engaging with Jewish leaders who spoke with him and that she believed the thrust of Mamdani’s campaign, which has centered on affordability, was resonant with New Yorkers.

“Do I think most New Yorkers voted for Mamdani because they wake up every morning thinking about Israel/Palestine?” wrote Jacobs. “No, most New Yorkers wake up thinking about how to pay their rent and take care of their kids and get to work — which is exactly what he ran on and what people responded.”

Back in June, voters who preferred Lander did not all choose to back Mamdani at the same time, despite the candidates’ cross-endorsement. A New York Times analysis found that, after Lander was eliminated during ranked-choice voting, 56% of his first-choice votes were allocated to Mamdani, meaning that they had ranked Mamdani higher than Cuomo or not at all.

But in a surprise, despite Lander’s cross-endorsement of Mamdani, half of his remaining votes were allocated to Cuomo, while the rest of the ballots had not ranked Cuomo or Mamdani and were discarded.

Since then, Lander himself says he has been working to convince voters who ranked him first in June to come around to Mamdani if they weren’t already there.

“I talked to some people who in the primary ranked me first and Zohran fifth,” he told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency during a Met Council food distribution event over the summer. “With them, I’ve been asking, OK, he’s been going around to listen to a lot of people to try to allay people’s concerns and fears, what do you want to hear and see that will help you feel more comfortable?”

Andrea Scheer is one of those voters. When it came time to vote in the Democratic mayoral primary this past June, she didn’t hesitate before ranking Lander first. The 76-year-old psychotherapist had already done some leafleting and tabling for him, and she is on the leadership committee of the Upper West Side Action Group, a progressive political group that endorsed Lander ahead of the primary.

She also recalls ranking City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams and State Sen. Zellnor Myrie. Her fourth and last-place ranked-choice vote went to Mamdani, who’d emerged as the likeliest candidate to take on Cuomo — a politician for whom Scheer said she has “no respect.”

“I had to put Mamdani somewhere,” Scheer said in an interview, in order to vote against Cuomo.

But the decision was one Scheer felt uneasy about because of Mamdani’s views on Israel. She cited Mamdani’s past refusal to condemn the phrase “globalize the intifada,” though she acknowledged that he said since that he would discourage its use. She has worries about his support for the movement to boycott Israel and how that could manifest under his leadership. And she also brought up Mamdani’s vow to have Benjamin Netanyahu arrested if the Israeli prime minister sets foot in New York City while he is mayor.

“Not that he’s one of my favorite people — he’s not, at all,” Scheer said about Netayahu. “But you’re going to arrest him? Again, different standards for Israel.”

But now, with Mamdani being the only progressive candidate in an election that’s just days away, Scheer said she must face that uneasiness head on. Given the field of candidates, Scheer said she is coming around on voting for Mamdani.

“I’m 90% there to vote for him,” Scheer said. “Because if I don’t vote for him I’m not voting. And it is absolutely against my DNA to not vote.”

Scheer said she is banking on Mamdani’s ability to grow. “I heard that he was going around to synagogues and talking to rabbis and, I’m sort of counting on him being smart enough to learn,” she said.

Arlene Geiger, the founder and coordinator of the UWS Action Group, estimated that upwards of 90% of group members are voting for Mamdani — but with varying levels of enthusiasm. Geiger, who is Jewish and said about 60% of people involved with her group are, too. She said an event in September where Lander addressed group members’ concerns about Mamdani had made a difference.

“I would say people were impressed with — I mean they love Brad — but I think that for those who were apprehensive, it made them feel better about Zohran,” Geiger said.

“Quite a few people came up afterwards and said, ‘I was on the fence but now I’m voting for Zohran,’” Lander said following an unrelated event later that week. “I’ve certainly had people say to me, ‘I’m not persuaded by you, but I appreciate your taking the time to have this conversation.’ And of course I’ve had people who call me a lot of ugly names, and I don’t reciprocate.”

Scheer said she wasn’t totally won over by attending. She left feeling that Lander had answered questions “a little bit generically,” like by repeating that Mamdani wants all New Yorkers to feel safe, and decided that she would not join others in tabling for Mamdani. But she concluded that she would feel comfortable voting for Mamdani again.

“The fact that he has Brad Lander as his buddy, I think would be helpful when it came to certain issues with Jews and Israel,” she said.

For Hillel Hirshbein, a 56-year old Jewish Harlem resident who identifies as a liberal and a Zionist and who ranked Lander first, Mamdani’s statements about Israel had been a deterrent going into the primary.

“I thought Mamdani’s policies, there were quite a few of them that were good. I thought that he was a much stronger presenter of a vision than some other candidates,” said Hirshbein. “But going into the primary, I had sort of a grave concern about things that he had been recorded saying that were somewhat anti-Israel and anti-Zionist.”

Ultimately, Hirshbein’s opposition to Cuomo made him rank Mamdani last in the primary election despite his “reluctance” to vote for a candidate who opposes Israel.

“I did, with reluctance, add him as my last candidate, because I sort of in my head, ended up ranking this decent guy who has integrity, but with whom I have a significant disagreement, above the guy who I don’t trust, and I think is just a corrupt sleazebag,” said Hirshbein.

Four months later, the career social worker said he had come around to Mamdani more enthusiastically because of what he says he will offer to “help folks that are on the margins.”

“I’m voting for him because of what I think he can do for the city, and setting aside the stuff that I think is rather is really anathema to me from his foreign policy perspectives,” said Hirshbein.

For some Jewish New Yorkers, that leap is proving too hard to make. Polls show that Mamdani is poised for victory next week and may command a majority of votes in a three-way race, even as Cuomo surges near the finish line. But the most recent poll of Jewish voters, from Quinnipiac University, found that 60% backed Cuomo, while just 16% said they favored Mamdani and 12% supported Sliwa.

Ultimately, while Lander said he recognized lingering concerns about Mamdani among New York’s progressive Jews, he still believed the frontrunner would do well among his voters in the general election.

“Obviously, there are some people in the community, in the Jewish community, who aren’t yet comfortable with him,” he said at the Met Council event. “But I believe he’s going to do very well in general, with people who voted for me first, and also with Jewish New Yorkers.”

For at least some of them, their ballots will come with a hefty dose of hope — that their best-case scenario will unfold and their biggest fears will not materialize.

“You can’t cross your fingers in the Star of David, but you know, I’ll hope for the best, I’ll wish him the best,” said Goldstein. Using the Yiddish or Hebrew term for common sense, he continued,  “I hope he has the sechel to keep the city intact and growing and to promote his program without sparking ethnic strife.”

The post These Jews backed Brad Lander in the primary. Are they taking his advice and voting Mamdani? appeared first on The Forward.

(JTA) — LAS VEGAS — Ted Cruz warned of rising antisemitism on the right — and a lack of Republican voices calling it out — as he kicked off the Republican Jewish Coalition’s annual summit Thursday night.

The speech reiterated comments he made at a San Antonio megachurch last week, including the core message that he’s recently seen more right-wing antisemitism than ever before.

“In the last six months, I’ve seen more antisemitism on the right than I had in my entire life,” Cruz said.

“This is a poison,” he continued. “And I believe we are facing an existential crisis in our party and our country.”

The RJC’s annual gathering, being held this weekend at the Venetian Resort Las Vegas, comes as a growing number of conservatives are turning against Israel, while right-wing voices who are spreading antisemitic conspiracies are finding mainstream audiences.

Cruz, a longtime supporter of Israel, presented the moment of division on the right as “a time for choosing.”

“And as for me, I choose to stand with you,” Cruz said to the room of about 100 Jewish Republican donors. “I choose to stand with Israel, and I choose to stand with America.”

As at the megachurch, Cruz, who is Christian, did not name names in his criticism of the “anti-Israel right.” But on Thursday he hinted strongly that he was speaking about Tucker Carlson, the former Fox News personality who recently hosted a friendly conversation with the white nationalist livestreamer Nick Fuentes. Carlson said during the interview that GOP supporters of Israel — including Cruz — are infected by a “brain virus.”

“If you sit there and nod adoringly while someone tells you that Winston Churchill was the villain of World War II, if you sit there and nod while someone says, ‘There’s a very good argument America should’ve intervened on behalf of Nazi Germany in World War II,’ if you sit there with someone who says ‘Adolf Hitler was very, very cool,’ and that their mission is to combat and defeat global Jewry, and you say nothing?” Cruz said. “Then you are a coward and you are complicit in that evil.”

His comments came just hours after Kevin Roberts, the president of leading conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation, answered mounting questions about whether he would continue to associate with Carlson after the Fuentes interview — with a resounding defense of Carlson.

RJC CEO Matt Brooks told Jewish Insider that, after working with Heritage over the years, there would be “a reassessment of our relationship with Heritage in light of this.”

Cruz called out the silence of Republican elected officials who’ve not spoken out against increasing right-wing antisemitism.

“I have to say, too many people are scared to confront them,” he said, referring to the “grotesque bigots” who do not plainly see Hitler as “the embodiment of evil.”

“How many elected Republicans do you see standing up and calling this out?” Cruz said. “How many do you see willing to take on the voices on the anti-Israel right?”

One name invoked by Cruz in a positive light was President Donald Trump, whom the Texas senator called “the most pro-Israel president in the history of the United States,” to loud applause.

Cruz affirmed to the RJC’s membership that with Trump in the White House, their interest in assisting Israel in its conflicts would be upheld, and kept away from the skepticism of a growing isolationist faction that would rather the United States not get involved.

(Trump has not publicly weighed in on Carlson hosting Fuentes; Trump once dined with Fuentes and rapper Ye between presidential terms in 2022, later saying that he had not known who Fuentes was.)

But Cruz then pointed to the post-Trump future as a fork in the road moment for the Republican Party.

“When Trump is not in the White House, what then?” Cruz said.

One man called out, “Ted Cruz!”

One potential candidate for Republican leadership in 2028 was not named in Cruz’s speech: JD Vance.

Cruz lauded Trump’s efforts in taking on Hamas and cracking down on campus protests, but did not name Vance as a friend of Jewish Americans.

Vance faced criticism this week after failing to push back on skeptical questions about Israel, including one laced with an antisemitic conspiracy theory, at a Turning Point USA event at Ole Miss. Vance also downplayed the messages sent in the recent Young Republicans leak, saying the text messages sent by early-career GOP activists — which included jokes about gas chambers, racist slurs and praise of Hitler — were simply immature “jokes” and that critics should “grow up.”

Cruz emphasized the need to “engage in college campuses” and “engage in the facts” in order to overcome the “handful of voices that are spreading this garbage,” whom he said were “giving every one of us a time for choosing.”

He thanked the crowd for being “patriots.”

“You love America — although the fact that you are Jewish means that there are idiots who would accuse you of not loving America simply because of it,” he said, invoking the dual loyalties trope to which Fuentes subscribes.

Cruz’s 25-minute speech included celebratory jokes about Israel’s pager operation that killed some and wounded hundreds of members of Hezbollah, condemnations of what he called a growing “pro-Hamas wing” of the Democratic Party, and a reflection on the horrors of Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel.

But its main thrust was that the Republican Party has reached a point where its Jewish and pro-Israel membership must think about how to stave off a growing anti-Israel movement, and quell the proliferation of antisemitic conspiracy theories.

Cruz began his speech by remarking that this was the RJC’s 40th-anniversary summit — a fact that he said poignantly reinforced the weight of this moment.

“Thinking back over the last 40 years, I don’t know that there has been a year in those 40 that the Republican Jewish Coalition was more needed than right now,” Cruz said.

The post Ted Cruz to Jewish Republicans: Antisemitism is ‘an existential crisis in our party’ appeared first on The Forward.