Uncategorized
The rabbinic backlash against Zohran Mamdani isn’t about Mamdani at all
The sheer number of letters by rabbis circulating about Zohran Mamdani’s New York City mayoral campaign is “mind numbing,” a rabbi friend texted me earlier this week.
There’s the public letter decrying Mamdani, the Democratic candidate, sponsored by The Jewish Majority, which as of this writing has 1,138 signatures from rabbis, cantors and rabbinical students. But two or three other letters are also making their way through her circles. (One affirms a belief that Mamdani’s support for Palestinian rights comes from “deep moral convictions”; the others have not yet been made public.) “Make it stop,” she wrote.
The last two years have been unbelievably difficult for American Jews, and particularly so for rabbis. Rabbis have been tasked with counseling congregants deeply affected by the trauma caused by Oct. 7 and the rise in antisemitism, as well as the global outcry against Israel’s brutal bombardment of Gaza. Not to mention navigating efforts by certain political actors to weaponize Jewish pain in order to silence pro-Palestinian activists, remake higher education and accelerate an aggressive deportation agenda.
Now, the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas has created something of a vacuum, leaving rabbis to channel the complexity of the last two years into an unrelenting, disproportionate and often negative focus on Mamdani.
The old joke goes “two Jews, three opinions.” It’s rare to find Jewish consensus on where to get the best bagels, let alone a political issue. Yet rabbis from states as distant as Nevada, Illinois, Georgia, Indiana, New Mexico and Tennessee have signed the Jewish Majority letter, which calls out “rising anti-Zionism and its political normalization,” publicly affirming their opposition to a potential Mayor Mamdani. While the letter boasts 1,138 signatures, only around 100 of them actually live in New York City and would be directly affected by a Mamdani administration.
Isn’t it a bit strange that no cause has apparently rallied more American rabbis — not a devastating humanitarian crisis in Gaza; not an antisemitic AI chatbot developed by the richest man on Earth; not the Department of Homeland Security sharing antisemitic dogwhistles; not Immigrations and Customs Enforcement kidnapping people off the street — than opposition to a Muslim, Democratic socialist mayoral candidate who is not pro-Israel?
I find it hard to believe that New York City’s next mayor is truly the most vital issue facing American Jews outside this specific city. So why this level of focused condemnation?
I think there’s an answer in the striking timing of these letters. Mamdani won the Democratic primary overwhelmingly in June. Where were the letters then? If anything, his victory seems less assured than it did a month or two ago — recent polls suggest that former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, running as an Independent, has cut Mamdani’s lead in half following Mayor Eric Adams’ withdrawal from the race.
So what changed? With the ceasefire and the return of the last living hostages, I think that diaspora Jewry is suddenly unsure about our political role. Now that the living hostages — the one issue most of us agreed on in the last two years — are home safe, whom do we advocate for? What are we supposed to talk about now?
The flurry of these rabbinic anti-Mamdani letters less than a month before the mayoral election in November has been framed by some as an extraordinary expression of rabbinic unity in the face of a dangerous candidate. “Look at how many American rabbis have ever signed a letter,” one commenter on r/Jewish wrote on Reddit. “This is one of the largest rabbinic sign-on letters in history.”
But I worry this proliferation is a sign of insecurity in our community, not health.
In a time when it has felt so impossible to express nuance and to allow for a multiplicity of truths, Mamdani represents, for many, an easy opportunity to align against a figure whose position on Israel departs from the long-accepted political norm of vocal support.
A recent poll conducted by The Washington Post shows that nearly 40 percent of American Jews believe Israel has committed genocide. That number jumps to 50 percent between the ages of 18 and 34. Synagogue leaders, who are always trying to grow their community with new, younger members, must appease older, more pro-Israel congregants while remaining in touch with the changing views of the new generations — a balancing act that is increasingly untenable.
For a rabbi who is attempting to negotiate the tensions of differing political beliefs within their congregation, it is far easier to sign a letter than it is to reckon, both personally and communally, with the profound generational divide on Israel.
Mamdani’s campaign is not the only time that rabbinic leaders have spoken out since the Hamas attack of Oct. 7, 2023 — or this year. On Feb. 13, 350 American rabbis took out a full-page ad in The New York Times to oppose President Donald Trump’s plan to remove all Palestinians from Gaza. “Jewish people say NO to ethnic cleansing!” it read in bold letters. In July, 1,200 rabbis and Jewish leaders from around the world signed a letter urging Israel to open Gaza to humanitarian aid, followed by a letter in August from over 80 Orthodox rabbis, led by the former mashgiach ruchani of Yeshiva University, Rabbi Yosef Blau.
But the Jewish Majority letter has made by far the biggest impact. And I wonder at the usefulness of its signatories expending limited political capital against a candidate who, by all accounts, is likely to become mayor. When historians write about this charged era of American Jewish life, when authoritarian power is aggressively taking hold, I doubt that this letter will be regarded as a worthy use of their considerable communal power.
In the end, the anti-Mamdani letters say very little about Mamdani and everything about American Jewry. Instead of coming together based on a shared commitment to Jewish values, American rabbis are choosing an enemy to ally against. Instead of drawing “a line in the sand,” as one commentator framed the letter, I fear it is simply a line that will further divide us.
Since Oct. 7, American Jews have been buffeted by anti-war protests, antisemitic attacks and institutional strife. The Hamas attacks and Israel’s war in Gaza have unleashed a profound internal and external reckoning about the previously sacrosanct relationship between the U.S. and Israel. With the tenuous ceasefire coming soon after the start of a new Jewish year, and the traditional pro-Israel consensus irrevocably cracking under the strain of war and religious extremism, American Jews have an important opportunity, now, to look inward.
What have we learned over these painful years? How can we heal, while also taking responsibility for the ways in which we did not use our power for good? How do we want to use our communal power, period? If the party line on Israel has changed, how do American Jews want to change with it?
The conversations within the Jewish community are just beginning, and will last long past the New York City mayoral election on Nov. 4. I pray that our rabbinic leaders will have the courage to help us have them.
The post The rabbinic backlash against Zohran Mamdani isn’t about Mamdani at all appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Syrian Government, Kurds Agree to Integration Deal, US Hails ‘Historic Milestone’
Members of the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) queue to settle their status with Syrian government in Raqqa, Syria, Jan. 27, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Karam al-Masri
The Syrian government and Kurdish forces declared a ceasefire deal on Friday that sets out a phased integration of Kurdish fighters into the state, averting a potentially bloody battle and drawing US praise for a “historic milestone.”
The sides announced the deal after government forces under President Ahmed al-Sharaa captured swathes of northern and eastern Syria from the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) group this month. This forced the Kurdish forces to retreat into a shrinking enclave in the northeast.
The fate of the SDF, which took over a quarter or more of Syria during its 2011-24 civil war, has been one of the biggest issues looming over Syria since Islamist insurgents led by Sharaa toppled President Bashar al-Assad 14 months ago.
US envoy Tom Barrack, who has been closely involved in mediation efforts, declared Friday’s accord “a profound and historic milestone in Syria’s journey toward national reconciliation, unity, and enduring stability.”
The SDF was once Washington’s main Syrian ally, playing a vital part in the fight against Islamic State terrorists. But its position grew weaker as President Donald Trump built close ties with Sharaa, a former al Qaeda commander who has now brought almost all of Syria back under the authority of Damascus.
US ENVOY PRAISES ‘COURAGEOUS STEPS’
Under the agreement, forces that had massed along front lines in the north would pull back and Interior Ministry security forces would deploy to the center of the cities of Hasakah and Qamishli in the northeast, both now held by the SDF.
The agreement includes the formation of a military division that will include three SDF brigades, in addition to a brigade for forces in the SDF-held town of Kobani, also known as Ain al-Arab, which will be affiliated to the governorate of Aleppo.
The Syrian official said the military division in the northeast would include “groups from the SDF within brigades, alongside other brigades.”
Governing bodies set up by the Kurdish-led groups in the northeast are to be merged with state institutions. But Elham Ahmad, a senior Kurdish official, told reporters via an interpreter that they would retain the co-chair system developed under autonomy-minded Kurdish authorities, with one male director and one female director.
Damascus and the SDF first struck an integration deal last March, but made scant progress toward implementation before a year-end deadline, paving the way for the government offensive.
“Both sides have taken courageous steps: the Syrian government in extending meaningful inclusion and rights, and the Kurdish communities in embracing a unified framework that honors their contributions while advancing the common good,” Barrack said.
Kurds have been on high alert for a potential government thrust into their remaining enclave, mindful of last year’s violence against minority Alawites and Druze.
Noah Bonsey, senior adviser with the International Crisis Group think tank, said the deal was “a potentially historic turning point” that appeared to lay out a middle ground for both sides.
“It spares northeast Syria what could have been a really ugly military showdown. Implementation will be tricky. There are a lot of challenges ahead,” he said.
Turkey said it was scrutinizing the agreement. Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan said “genuine integration is in Syria’s interest, and the parties are already aware of its conditions.”
Turkey has sent forces into Syria several times since 2016, deeming the SDF an extension of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), which took up arms against the Turkish state in 1984 but began a peace process with Ankara in 2025.
UNIFYING SYRIAN TERRITORY
Ahmad, the Kurdish official, said France and the United States should establish a mechanism to ensure the deal is implemented correctly, citing fears it could be derailed by “spoilers,” without specifying further.
Syrian officials said on Friday they feared figures within the PKK who reject the deal would not abide by the ceasefire.
An SDF statement said the deal “aims to unify Syrian territory and achieve full integration in the region.” The Syrian government shared an almost identical statement with Reuters.
A senior Syrian government official told Reuters the deal was final and had been reached late on Thursday night, and that implementation was to begin immediately.
The statements did not address control of the last remaining SDF-controlled border crossing to northern Iraq, known as Semalka. The Syrian official said the Syrian state would take over all border crossings.
Ahmad said Semalka border officials would be integrated into the central state but that more discussions would need to be held with Damascus.
Uncategorized
US Imposes Sanctions on Iran’s Interior Minister, Businessman
USA and Iranian flags are seen in this illustration taken, Sept. 8, 2022. Photo: REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration
The United States on Friday imposed sanctions on Iranian Interior Minister Eskandar Momeni and a businessman it said helped launder money for Tehran, as President Donald Trump’s administration ramps up pressure on the Islamic Republic.
The Department of the Treasury, announcing the move, said Momeni was responsible for a brutal security crackdown in Iran this month as he oversees law enforcement forces it said were responsible for the deaths of thousands of peaceful protesters.
Trump has in recent weeks issued threats to intervene in Iran over the bloody suppression of the protests and has sent warships to the Middle East, even as he has said he plans to talk with the government there.
The financial sanctions on Friday also targeted five other Iranian security officials involved in “violently repressing the Iranian people,” the Treasury said in a statement.
Sanctions were also issued against investor Babak Zanjani and two digital asset exchanges registered in Britain that the Treasury said had processed funds linked to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the US would continue to target Iranian elites and their networks, who he said exploit digital assets to evade sanctions and finance cybercriminal operations.
“Like rats on a sinking ship, the regime is frantically wiring funds stolen from Iranian families to banks and financial institutions around the world. Rest assured, Treasury will act,” Bessent said in the statement.
Uncategorized
US Slows Transfers of Islamic State Detainees to Iraq, Sources Say
Syrian security forces stand guard outside al-Aqtan prison, where some Islamic State detainees are held, in Raqqa, Syria, Jan. 23, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Karam al-Masri
Transfers of Islamic State detainees from Syria to Iraq by the US military have slowed this week, seven sources familiar with the matter said, following calls by Baghdad for other countries to repatriate thousands of foreign jihadists.
The US military said on Jan. 21 it had started to transfer the detainees. Its announcement followed the rapid collapse of the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces in northeast Syria, which caused uncertainty about the security of prisons and detention camps they were guarding.
The United States had expected to transfer up to 7,000 fighters to Iraq within days. But more than a week later, only about 500 have been moved, according to two Iraqi judicial officials, two Iraqi security officials, and three diplomats, some from countries whose nationals are among those transferred.
An Iraqi foreign ministry official put the number at under 500 so far.
Baghdad asked the US to slow the influx to make time for negotiations with other countries on repatriating their own nationals among the detainees and to prepare additional facilities to host the fighters, the Iraqi officials and a Western diplomat told Reuters.
Those moved to Iraqi facilities so far include about 130 Iraqis and some 400 foreigners, the Iraqi judicial sources, the Iraqi security officials and a Western diplomat said.
The slowdown, which has not previously been reported, is linked to Western governments’ reservations about bringing home their own citizens who joined the Islamic State‘s brutal self-declared caliphate across swathes of Syria and Iraq from 2014.
Most foreign fighters were subsequently captured in Syria and held in prisons in the northeast for years without trial.
The US State Department and the Pentagon did not immediately respond to Reuters requests for comment on the transfers.
IRAQ BALKS AT MASS TRANSFER
Iraq agreed to host the detainees being moved by the US military after a brief escape by dozens of fighters from one facility in Syria prompted concerns that more could flee, Iraqi government officials said.
But although it has already tried and sentenced dozens of foreign fighters in recent years, Baghdad balked at the prospect of having the full 7,000 in its custody, the officials said.
The influx could overwhelm Iraq’s courts and prisons, and sentencing detainees to death would prompt criticism from Western countries and rights groups, they said.
“It’s a trap,” one of the senior Iraqi judicial sources said. “These Western countries object to the death penalty, but refuse to receive their terrorists. Why should we bear the burden of being seen as the butcher?”
Responding to questions from Reuters, Hisham al-Alawi, Undersecretary of Iraq‘s Foreign Ministry for Political Planning, said fewer than 500 detainees had been transferred to Iraq so far.
“For years, Iraq has been urging foreign states to assume their responsibilities by taking back their citizens and dealing with them in accordance with their own laws. While some countries have taken the initiative, a large number of states have not responded to our requests,” Alawi said.
The dilemma of what to do with foreign nationals who joined Islamic State has plagued Western countries for the last decade.
Securing guilty verdicts against such detainees in their home countries could be harder than in Iraq, said four diplomats from countries whose nationals were captured in Syria, citing a greater need to prove direct participation in violent crimes.
Governments in such countries could face a public backlash if Islamic State fighters were repatriated and then freed, the diplomats said.
The return of an Islamic State-linked woman to Norway in 2020 caused a cabinet crisis that ultimately brought down the government.
As a result of Western nations’ hesitations, thousands of foreign fighters detained in Syria and Iraq remained there for nearly a decade – even though the US, which repatriated and tried its nationals, urged other countries to do the same.
REPATRIATION THE ONLY ANSWER, EXPERT SAYS
The senior Iraqi judicial source said Baghdad was working with the US State Department on increasing pressure on other countries to begin repatriations.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio said after transfers had begun that foreign Islamic State members would be in Iraq temporarily. “The United States urges countries to take responsibility and repatriate their citizens in these facilities to face justice,” he said.
Two diplomats from countries with nationals now in Iraq said their governments faced an uncomfortable choice between repatriation – which would be unpopular domestically – and the possibility that their nationals would face the death penalty if tried in Iraq, an outcome that could outrage voters at home.
One of the diplomats said Baghdad had begun conversations with their country about repatriations but that their government’s policy was unchanged.
“It would be difficult for us to accept that they are transferred to Iraq if they are then going to get their head chopped off,” the second diplomat said.
Letta Tayler, an associate fellow at the International Centre for Counter-Terrorism, said the mass transfer of detainees to Iraq “has mind-boggling legal implications, none of them positive.”
It could prolong their indefinite detention without trial and place detainees at risk of torture and executions based on flawed convictions, Tayler said. The US has raised concerns about unfair trials of Islamic State detainees in Iraq.
“The only viable solution is for countries with fair justice systems to repatriate their nationals,” Tayler said.