Uncategorized
The Left Can’t Cheer for Peace When Trump Is Involved
US President Donald Trump speaks to the press before boarding Marine One to depart for Quantico, Virginia, from the South Lawn at the White House in Washington, DC, US, Sept. 30, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Ken Cedeno
President Donald Trump has done what few thought possible: he helped broker a sweeping ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, negotiated the release of hostages, and achieved the first genuine breakthrough toward calm in nearly a year. For Israelis, the deal means quiet skies and the return of abducted families. For Palestinians, it offers desperately needed relief. For Americans, it represents a rare moment of when diplomacy actually worked.
And yet, the reaction from much of the American Left has been silence. The same political and moral voices that have spent months demanding a ceasefire in Gaza have fallen mute now that one has arrived. Even Barack Obama, who cautiously said we should all be “encouraged and relieved,” stopped short of acknowledging Trump’s role. Progressive leaders and influencers who once posted daily about “ending the killing” have said little. Media outlets that elevated every previous diplomatic setback have moved on.
It is a remarkable dissonance: the very outcome so many claimed to desire — peace, de-escalation, humanitarian access — has been achieved, but by the wrong hands. That contradiction tells us something profound about the state of American civic life. Our politics have become so saturated by affective polarization, so defined by visceral emotional hostility toward the other side, that many cannot even celebrate peace if it arrives through a political rival.
Affective polarization is more than disagreement. It is the phenomenon, now well-documented by scholars like Shanto Iyengar and Lilliana Mason, in which partisans grow to hate and distrust their opponents as people, not merely oppose their ideas. It is a moral emotion more than a rational stance: disgust, fear, contempt. The more one side is loathed, the more moral it feels to reject everything associated with it. This emotional sorting has turned politics into a theater of identity rather than a contest of policy.
That is why so many on the Left cannot bring themselves to give Trump credit for this deal. In a healthy political culture, a ceasefire and hostage release would be an occasion for shared relief, if not gratitude. But in our polarized one, positive feelings toward an opponent are experienced as betrayal. To say that Trump succeeded is not, in the mind of many progressives, to acknowledge a fact; it is to wound one’s tribe. The reaction becomes moralized: silence as purity, acknowledgment as contamination.
Political sorting has made this response all but inevitable. Over the past several decades, many Americans have come to live, worship, and socialize with those who think like themselves. Partisanship now defines moral boundaries and social identity. To be “on the Left” no longer simply means favoring redistributive policies or progressive reforms, it means belonging to a moral community defined in opposition to Trump and the movement that supports him.
When identity is at stake, the ordinary norms of evaluation break down. The achievement of peace becomes inseparable from the personality associated with it. The act cannot be good if the actor is, in the tribe’s imagination, evil. As affective polarization deepens, moral reasoning collapses into reflex. Emotion crowds out judgment.
This isn’t unique to the Left, of course. Conservatives behaved similarly under Obama, dismissing or minimizing his role in successes such as the raid on Osama bin Laden or sanctions on Iran. But today’s reaction carries a different weight. The moral intensity that animates the modern progressive movement — its conviction that it alone occupies the side of justice — makes acknowledgment of an opponent’s virtue especially threatening.
Affective polarization doesn’t just distort how people feel about politics; it reshapes how they feel about truth. Once emotions determine perception, facts that contradict the emotional order must be ignored or reframed. This is why even a genuine diplomatic success can be spun as suspect: perhaps the deal was coerced, perhaps it was opportunistic, perhaps it will fail. These rationalizations serve an emotional function, they preserve the purity of contempt.
Former President Obama’s muted response captures the dilemma perfectly. He offered relief without recognition, validation without credit. The avoidance is deliberate. He knows that open praise of Trump would fracture the progressive coalition that still reveres him. Acknowledging the achievement would invite accusations of appeasement or betrayal. In an era of affective polarization, even measured generosity risks being reinterpreted as treason to the cause.
But this silence comes at a moral cost. When leaders cannot acknowledge good done by their adversaries, they model a politics of negation. They teach citizens that truth is partisan and that virtue is contingent on affiliation. The habit of withholding praise corrodes the civic trust that democratic life requires. It signals that what matters most is not reality but narrative: the preservation of emotional coherence over empirical fact.
That logic now governs much of American political life. The reaction to Trump’s Middle East deal is simply the latest and starkest case.
This is how affective polarization hollows out moral courage. It makes sincerity dangerous and honesty costly. It turns politics into a form of emotional hygiene, where purity must be maintained at all costs. The moment we fear that recognition of another’s good deed might “taint” us, civic reasoning has already given way to tribalism.
The tragedy is that this pattern is self-reinforcing. Each refusal to acknowledge the other side’s success deepens distrust and confirms the caricature.
The result is a democracy that can no longer experience joy together. A moment of peace in the Middle East becomes not a unifying event, but another test of loyalty. Even moral goods, saving lives, freeing captives, are recoded through partisan emotion.
There was a time when American leaders resisted that temptation. When Richard Nixon opened up to China, Democrats recognized its strategic value. When Jimmy Carter mediated peace between Israel and Egypt, Republicans offered credit. When Ronald Reagan forged arms agreements with Gorbachev, Democrats applauded the breakthrough. These gestures were not signs of weakness, but of civic strength. They reflected a shared moral confidence that truth and goodness could exist outside partisan lines.
We have lost that confidence. Affective polarization has made cross-party acknowledgment feel morally dangerous. It has replaced civic humility with moral narcissism.
The solution begins with a small but radical act: honesty. A willingness to recognize good wherever it appears, and to praise virtue even when it originates in the hands of a rival. That act does not diminish one’s convictions; it dignifies them. It affirms that truth exists independently of our tribes, that moral worth is not determined by partisanship, and that peace — real, tangible, human peace — is a universal good.
The ceasefire and hostage release will face challenges, as all fragile peace deals do. But for now, lives have been spared, families reunited, and the possibility of stability renewed. That is cause for gratitude, not partisan discomfort.
Peace, like truth, does not belong to one party or president. It belongs to all who value life over politics. To say so should not require courage. But in today’s polarized America, it does.
And that, perhaps, is the clearest measure of how much work remains to be done.
Samuel J. Abrams is a professor of politics at Sarah Lawrence College and a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
Uncategorized
Zohran Mamdani, Muslim Democratic NYC candidate, looms large at Republican Jewish confab
LAS VEGAS — There were a number of villains at the Republican Jewish Coalition’s annual summit here this weekend.
Tucker Carlson, who recently hosted avowed antisemite and white nationalist Nick Fuentes on his show, was lambasted by speakers as not being part of their MAGA movement. The phrase “Imagine if Kamala Harris were president,” said with relief, was uttered more than a few times.
But the name that drew the loudest boos the entire weekend was one that, a year ago, would have been completely unknown to the room.
“Take a look now at Zohran Mamdani, who represents the absolute worst of the worst,” said Norm Coleman, the RJC chairman and former senator.
“The extreme of the party is now the mainstream of the Democratic Party,” he added, a sentiment that was echoed widely, including by the Jewish congressmen Mike Lawler and David Kustoff.
Coleman invoked Mamdani to emphasize the importance of maintaining a Republican majority in Congress, using Mamdani as an example of how the Democratic party will “enact the most progressive, radical, leftist agenda this country has ever seen” if they can take control.
Mamdani, the Democratic nominee and favorite to be elected this week as mayor of New York City, is opposed to Israel’s government and existence as a Jewish state and subscribes to democratic socialist politics that are anathema to the RJC’s values.
Several of the speakers lambasted Mamdani’s 2023 comments, resurfaced this week, accusing the Israeli army of being the cause of problems within the New York Police Department.
The summit came at a moment of growing concern about antisemitism in conservative circles. But by casting Mamdani as the new face and direction of the Democratic Party, RJC speakers were able to acknowledge the existence of antisemitism on the right, while still pointing to the Democrats as having a far bigger, less controlled problem.
“The antisemitism problem exists in both parties,” Ari Fleisher, an RJC board member, told reporters. But, he continued, “Republicans have a cold. Democrats have a fever.”
“The Democrats have a growing socialism problem,” Fleisher continued. “And mark my words, the future is playing out before your very eyes at this meeting: What statement got the biggest reaction from the crowd? It was any reference to Mamdani. He’s not even elected yet.”
Fleisher said he expects Mamdani’s ascension to be “the new animating force that’s going to drive a lot of Republicans” into action.
“They’re adding to their fever, and his election will singularly tip that fever into a red-hot area that’s going to be hard for the Democrats to recover from,” Fleisher said.
The comments comes amid speculation that Republican leaders are in some ways eager for Mamdani’s election in New York, where the current mayor’s tolerance of the Trump administration has fended off some of the targeting that the president has directed toward other large cities this year. A democratic socialist at the helm of the city, long an avatar for conservative anxieties about crime and diversity, gives the Republicans a punching bag for attacks on the Democratic Party and, party strategists hope, boosts Republican odds in upcoming downballot races.
Fleisher was far from the only speaker to call out Mamdani.
Pennsylvania Sen. Dave McCormick said antisemitism is “running wild on the progressive left,” and that “the leaders of the Democratic Party are not confronting it, with their new star, Mamdani.”
Florida Rep. Randy Fine, one of four Jewish Republicans in Congress, called for Mamdani to be deported.
“The only thing I want to see Mamdani running for is his gate at JFK on the deportation flight to Uganda,” Fine said to cheers.
“Lord help us and pray for the people of New York City,” said conservative CNN commentator, Scott Jennings.
Emily Austin, a social media influencer who’s behind the group Hot Girls for Cuomo, said “extremists both abroad and here at home are committed to dismantling” a set of “Western values” that includes ”freedom, individual rights, democracy, capitalism.”
“And nowhere is this clearer than in my home, New York City,” she said.
“He is being elevated as a serious voice, potentially the next mayor of the biggest city in the world,” Austin said. (That title actually belongs to Tokyo; New York is 49th in population.) “Just think about the absurdity of that.”
Rank-and-file Republican Party donors in attendance who’d already been worried about a Mamdani mayoral administration felt their fears confirmed by speakers’ warnings and condemnations.
“I have two sons that work on Wall Street and I’m extremely concerned about their safety,” said Valerie Greenfeld, who moved to Israel from Washington, D.C., in 2021 but remains active with the RJC, in an interview.
“They assure me that they’re fine and all of this, but given everything that I’ve heard today, I know that I’m right,” Greenfeld said. “They’re not fine.”
She added, “Coming to the RJC today has helped me realize what I’ve known for quite some time.”
Speakers’ criticisms of Mamdani ranged from his socialist views (“Maybe he should go down to Cuba and see what it’s like to see a bread line,” said Sen. Rick Scott) to harping on the Queens assemblymember’s Muslim faith. Sid Rosenberg, the Jewish shock jock who quipped about Mamdani cheering for a second 9/11 — which Mamdani’s challenger, former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, played along with on the air — doubled down on that comment.
Rosenberg then explicitly shared his thoughts about Mamdani’s ascendance as a Muslim politician, suggesting that he was emblematic of a wave that he finds threatening.
“I believe there’s, what, 200 elected officials [in the country] that are Muslim, maybe 800 by the end of the year,” Rosenberg said.
“I don’t beat around the bush and I don’t care what you think about me — I don’t want Muslims running this country,” Rosenberg said, drawing applause.
“Now I’m not saying every Muslim’s a bad person,” Rosenberg said. “But when you preface something with something like that, the odds are — a lot of them are, right?”
He added, “When they take over New York City, which they’re about to do in four or five days, the rest of the country gets a heck of a lot easier.”
—
The post Zohran Mamdani, Muslim Democratic NYC candidate, looms large at Republican Jewish confab appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Why Satmar Hasidic leaders endorsed Zohran Mamdani as mayor, stunning many Jewish voters
In a surprising show of support, Zohran Mamdani secured a major endorsement from one of the largest blocs of voters in the Haredi community, even as he still struggles to earn the trust of many Jews in the race for New York City mayor.
The Satmar Hasidic community in Brooklyn, led by Rabbi Aaron Teitelbaum from Kiryas Joel and known as the Ahronim, is expected to announce it is backing Mamdani at an event Sunday afternoon, according to two sources familiar with the development. It chose Mamdani over former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who also sought their support and was endorsed by them in the Democratic primary.
The approximately 80,000 voters in Brooklyn’s Haredi communities, where rabbinic dictates about ballot choices lead to a reliable bloc of support, are particularly sought after by candidates.
If Mamdani, a democratic socialist and strident critic of Israel who leads by double digits according to recent polls, wins Tuesday’s election, it would mark the third consecutive mayoral race in which the Ahronim have demonstrated their political influence by backing the eventual winner, while other Hasidic blocs supported rival candidates.
In 2021, they endorsed Eric Adams over Andrew Yang, who was favored by most leading Hasidic sects. And in 2013, they backed Bill de Blasio, who narrowly avoided a runoff in the Democratic primary by just 5,000 votes, while the Zalonim and other groups supported Bill Thompson, then seen as the frontrunner.
The move to endorse Mamdani came days after Satmar, including the larger sect led by Rabbi Zalmen Teitelbaum from Williamsburg and known as the Zalonim, declared that they would not endorse any candidate for mayor while also condemning the “fear campaign” and attacks on Mamdani. They also met with Cuomo on Wednesday night, accompanied by Mayor Eric Adams, but ultimately declined to back him.
In an open letter to their followers published on Wednesday, the Satmar leadership highlighted Mamdani’s gestures that specifically addressed their concerns. They noted that the Democratic nominee has said he would work to protect Hasidic yeshivas that face scrutiny for failing to meet state education standards and promised that Hasidic families would benefit from his proposals to expand affordable housing and establish universal childcare.
If Mamdani wins, he would become the first Muslim mayor of New York City, home to the largest concentration of Jews in the U.S.
Moshe Indig, a political leader of the Satmar sect, told The New York Times during the primary that he was open to supporting Mamdani after their first interaction. Indig said the candidate came across as “very nice, very humble,” and assured him he is not antisemitic.
Cuomo still enjoys broad support among Jewish voters, who make up an estimated 10% of the general election electorate. A recent Quinnipiac poll of 170 Jewish voters showed Cuomo with 60% of their support and Mamdani with 16%, while a separate Marist poll of 792 likely voters — including an 11% sample of Jewish voters — found Cuomo with 55% and Mamdani at 32% among Jewish respondents.
Cuomo also has the backing of most Orthodox groups that helped swing the 2021 mayoral race for Adams, including the Flatbush Jewish Community Coalition and the two largest voting blocs in Borough Park — Bobov and Belz. The remaining 25 Hasidic sects and yeshivas in Borough Park have declined to issue a recommendation in the current race.
The post Why Satmar Hasidic leaders endorsed Zohran Mamdani as mayor, stunning many Jewish voters appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Angela Buchdahl, prominent NYC rabbi, ratchets up criticism of Zohran Mamdani — and cautions against Jewish infighting
(JTA) — Rabbi Angela Buchdahl, one of New York City’s most prominent rabbis, addressed the growing turmoil within New York’s Jewish community over the upcoming mayoral election — delivering a sermon at Manhattan’s Central Synagogue Friday night that included her most pointed comments yet about frontrunner Zohran Mamdani, while reaffirming her refusal to endorse or oppose any political candidate.
“I fear living in a city, and a nation, where anti-Zionist rhetoric is normalized and contagious,” Buchdahl said during services at her synagogue, one of the country’s largest Reform congregations. “Mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani has contributed to a mainstreaming of some of the most abhorrent antisemitism.”
She cited Mamdani’s 2023 remark, surfaced this week, saying the New York Police Department had learned aggressive policing tactics from the Israeli army and his past reluctance to label Hamas a terrorist group.
Yet even as she condemned the rhetoric, Buchdahl rejected calls from some in the Jewish community to endorse in the mayoral race — a demand that has placed her, and other prominent New York rabbis, under intense pressure in recent weeks.
The city’s Jewish institutions, already reeling from a war in Gaza that led to intense anti-Israel protests, have been alarmed by the rise of Mamdani, a progressive state assemblyman from Queens and anti-Zionist critic of Israel. Jewish leaders across the denominational spectrum have debated whether rabbis should publicly oppose his candidacy, citing fears about normalization of anti-Zionism in politics and worries that if elected Mamdani will not protect Jewish interests.
Last month, over 1,100 Jewish clergy signed a letter denouncing Mamdani and the “normalization of anti-Zionism,” quoting another prominent Manhattan rabbi, Elliot Cosgrove of Park Avenue Synagogue, who in a recent sermon endorsed Mamdani’s independent opponent, former N.Y. Gov. Andrew Cuomo. In a sign that Jews are not of one mind on Mamdani’s candidacy, more that 200 rabbis, at least 40 located in or near New York City, signed a second letter charging the first letter was divisive.
Buchdahl, who has a national profile as the country’s first Asian-American woman rabbi and as a sought-out spokesperson on Jewish affairs, had previously written to her members to explain why she would not endorse any candidate or sign public political letters, despite her “steadfast support of Israel and Zionism.”
After Buchdahl declined to sign the rabbinic letter, she drew withering attacks on social media from those who said she was failing to advance Jewish interests — some from her own congregants.
In her latest remarks, Buchdahl said she felt so compelled to address the tension directly that she returned during a sabbatical taken to promote her new book.
“I knew I needed to be here with my Jewish family,” she said. “Some of you agreed with my position. Some of you, very emphatically, did not.”
She continued, “I was flooded with emails of support, and I want to thank all of you who shared those words with me. But I want to offer even more thanks to those of you who privately and respectfully shared your disagreement with me. I have been listening, and I want to respond in person tonight because that is what you do when you care about your family.”
Buchdahl framed her sermon around Lech Lecha, the Torah portion in which Abraham and Sarah leave the familiarity of home for “a place they do not know.” The story, she suggested, mirrors the community’s uncertainty about its place in a shifting political and moral landscape.
She spoke both to those who see the election as “an existential moment for our Jewish community” and to younger Jews who fear that “our community has become too focused on fear and what can be done to us.”
She acknowledged that Mamdani has met recently with Jewish civic and business leaders and softened some of his language. “I would not quickly trust a campaigning politician changing his lifelong positions,” she said. “But I hear those who believe we must engage even with those we deeply disagree with, or risk isolating ourselves from the broader good of this city.”
Drawing on an idea from Israeli writer Yossi Klein Halevi, Buchdahl described the community’s divide as one between “Purim Jews” — who prioritize vigilance and self-protection — and “Passover Jews,” who emphasize empathy and justice for the vulnerable. “Both memories are sacred, and both are necessary,” she said. “Compassion without caution is reckless naïveté; vigilance without empathy is paranoia or despair.”
While acknowledging that she is “terrified by how anti-Zionist rhetoric and antisemitic tropes have led to some deadly violence against Jews,” Buchdahl also turned her concern inward to talk about the internal Jewish tensions. “It endangers all of us: the way we are trying to impose a litmus test on other Jews, essentially saying you’re either with us or you’re against us,” she said. “Pitting Jew against Jew. Rabbi against rabbi.”
She warned that such divisions could do more damage than any outside threat. “Both Temples were destroyed because of sinat chinam — senseless hate,” she said. “We can argue robustly and should. But disputation does not require defamation.”
Buchdahl also defended her decision not to make political endorsements, invoking both the federal Johnson Amendment — the decades-old ban on political campaigning by religious institutions that the IRS recently announced it would stop enforcing — and Central Synagogue’s own policy of non-endorsement. “Once a rabbi can tell you how to vote, imagine donations being given, or withheld, in exchange for a rabbi’s thumb on the scale,” she said.
Instead, she pledged to continue speaking on “moral issues that unfold in the political realm,” regardless of partisanship. “I thanked President Biden for standing with Israel after Oct. 7, and I thanked President Trump for helping bring home the hostages after others failed,” she said.
Buchdahl concluded with a message of hope, describing meetings with Jewish students at Yale, Brandeis and Harvard who, she said, “don’t want to be defined by fear.”
“They want a Jewish community where disagreement doesn’t mean disconnection,” she said. “We will find our way forward if we walk it together.”
Buchdahl’s sermon was applauded and received a standing ovation from the congregation.
The post Angela Buchdahl, prominent NYC rabbi, ratchets up criticism of Zohran Mamdani — and cautions against Jewish infighting appeared first on The Forward.
