Uncategorized
These Jews backed Brad Lander in the primary. Are they taking his advice and voting Mamdani?
(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.
Uncategorized
J Street goes on the offensive against AIPAC-backed candidates
(JTA) — J Street, the liberal Jewish Middle East advocacy group, announced that it will spend $3 million to defeat a handful of Republican candidates backed by AIPAC, joining the plethora of progressive groups targeting the American Israel Public Affairs Committee this election year.
Such an attack campaign is an unusual initiative for J Street, which typically endorses candidates but does not target opponents on the basis of an AIPAC endorsement. Until now, according to J Street President Jeremy Ben-Ami, the likelier scenario for his organization was finding its endorsed candidates on the defensive against AIPAC’s spending.
“It’s a new era for us,” Ben-Ami said in an interview. In 2022, J Street targeted an AIPAC backed candidate — but only after AIPAC barraged the J Street endorsed candidate with negative spending.
In a statement, J Street said that this will be the group’s largest super PAC investment in its history, referring to political action committees that can raise unlimited funds but are forbidden from coordinating with campaigns.
The $3 million will be spent on ads targeting Republican Rep. Mike Collins, who is running for U.S. Senate in Georgia against Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff, who is Jewish, and a handful of incumbents: Ohio Rep. Max Miller, who is running for reelection amid allegations of domestic abuse, which he denies; Wisconsin Rep. Derrick Van Orden; Pennsylvania Rep. Ryan Mackenzie; and Iowa Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks.
Ben-Ami said J Street targeted those particular candidates in part because they each face competitive races as the Democrats look to take control of the House and Senate and they have ideological distance from J Street. Many of them were also connected to the movement to deny and overturn the 2020 election results, Ben-Ami said.
J Street’s campaign comes as AIPAC’s brand has become increasingly toxic among voters, and as a growing number of Democratic politicians cross its red line of supporting conditions on U.S. military aid to Israel. J Street’s position, meanwhile, has recently drifted toward supporting a phasing-out of military aid to Israel in 2028.
AIPAC blasted the campaign in a post on X. “Is this from J Street or Justice Democrats?” AIPAC wrote, referring to the progressive organization that has increasingly aligned with pro-Palestinian advocacy.
“A dark money super PAC spending millions to defeat pro-Israel candidates and lie about AIPAC,” the group wrote. “Not a word about helping elect pro-Israel candidates further exposes the difference between J Street and actual pro-Israel organizations.”
AIPAC has been a heavy spender since it launched its super PAC, United Democracy Project, ahead of the 2022 midterms, and is the top outside spender in this election cycle, according to Open Secrets. A number of anti-AIPAC, pro-Palestinian groups have emerged over the past year to counter the pro-Israel lobbying group’s spending.
Unlike those groups, J Street and AIPAC have some overlap in which candidates they back: Both groups endorsed moderate, pro-Israel Democrats such as Reps. Hakeem Jeffries and Dan Goldman. J Street’s super PAC has also previously targeted individual candidates for their AIPAC endorsement, such as Rep. Haley Stevens in 2022, citing AIPAC’s donations from right-wing megadonors.
An AIPAC spokesperson wrote that it is “disappointing, but not surprising, that J Street continues to amplify lies about our community.”
“AIPAC members are focused on helping elect Democrats and Republicans who will strengthen the U.S.-Israel partnership, while J Street is focused on turning support for the Jewish state into a partisan political football,” said AIPAC’s spokesperson.
Ben-Ami said this year’s campaign is not about “the relationship between us and AIPAC,” but is rather about emboldening candidates who may otherwise worry that they will be up against AIPAC’s war chest.
“We are very conscious that there are many candidates who are afraid of what AIPAC might be able to do politically, and therefore adopt positions and say things about policy because they are afraid, and their fear and intimidation is holding them back,” Ben-Ami said.
Now, he said, J Street is putting “the shoe on the other foot.”
“If you are going to oppose American democracy and provide carte blanche to this Israeli government, then you need to be afraid,” he said.
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post J Street goes on the offensive against AIPAC-backed candidates appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Germany’s far-right AfD, riding state win, targets more gains in elections from east to west
(JTA) — Germany’s far-right, riding high after winning an eastern state, seeks to capitalize on its momentum in a series of upcoming elections — starting with municipal voting this weekend, followed by two closely watched state contests.
The first test for the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party comes Sunday in municipal elections in the western state of Lower Saxony. A week later, the AfD has its sights on state elections in the capital, Berlin, and the Baltic coast state of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania.
The AfD beat out other parties in Saxony-Anhalt on Sept. 6 with 43.8% of the vote and 39 of 83 state parliament seats, falling just short of a majority and marking Germany’s greatest far-right victory in a state election since World War II.
“From previous elections, we know that the AfD is currently able to mobilize almost totally its own constituency and potential voters, while its democratic competitors have much more problems,” said Gideon Botsch, the head of the Emil Julius Gumbel Research Unit on Antisemitism and Right-Wing Extremism at Potsdam University.
While polls do not predict the next state election results will match the historic win in Saxony-Anhalt, the AfD currently leads other parties in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania with about 35% of the vote. And in Berlin, long a stronghold of Germany’s political left, the AfD is jockeying with the center-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and the left-wing Linke for first place, with all three polling around 20%.
The AfD, a nationalist, anti-immigrant party whose leaders have proposed rejecting Germany’s “guilt complex” over the Holocaust, has regularly topped nationwide opinion polls for the past year. In surveys asking Germans which party they would choose if federal elections were held “this Sunday,” the AfD often receives the highest results, Botsch told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
The AfD has built a dedicated and growing base, said Botsch. Its popularity signals frustration with the mainstream parties in power, particularly the CDU, Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s party, amid a sluggish economy. The AfD is especially popular in eastern Germany, where voters are poorer and hit hard by high energy prices exacerbated by the wars in Iran and Ukraine.
The AfD is likely to perform more weakly in the west, where Lower Saxony will hold a municipal election on Sunday. The party has stronger influence in the east, and Germany’s municipal elections tend to hinge more on well-known figures from established parties, said Roger Stöcker, a political scientist at Otto von Guericke University in Magdeburg. Still, even if the AfD doesn’t transform governments, Stöcker said that making inroads to further entrench itself in Lower Saxony would be “a strategically significant success.”
“It’s conceivable that the AfD wins a town hall or a county administration here and there or strengthens its presence in local councils, expanding its local base,” said Stöcker.
The three upcoming elections are being closely watched for signs of the AfD’s wider-scale momentum, said Daniel Schuster, who heads the Simon Wiesenthal Center’s European office.
“Taken together, these elections can help show whether Saxony-Anhalt was an exceptionally strong eastern result or part of a broader national expansion of the AfD’s electoral base,” said Schuster.
Remko Leemhuis, the director of the American Jewish Committee Berlin Lawrence and Lee Ramer Institute for German-Jewish Relations, added that residents will feel the effects of the AfD’s success even if it falls short of its victory in Saxony-Anhalt. A “very strong AfD result,” short of managing to enter government coalitions, would still “raise serious concerns” for Jewish residents about the party’s influence, said Leemhuis.
Residents in Saxony-Anhalt are waiting to see the ramifications of the AfD’s election victory. Without an outright majority, the party needs partners to join a coalition. Its nationalist agenda in the region includes teaching children less about Hitler, banning Pride flags in public buildings and requiring artists and cultural organizations to sign a declaration that they will not “disparage Germany and its culture” if they seek state funding.
State governments also control domestic policing and parts of the judiciary. The AfD could use its power in these areas to “put pressure on minorities it dislikes,” including immigrants, Muslims and Jews who are identified with Holocaust remembrance, said Stöcker. At the same time, the AfD could direct policing and intelligence away from right-wing extremism in Saxony-Anhalt, which recorded the second-highest number of right-wing extremist crimes per capita of Germany’s 16 states last year, Leemhuis said.
The AfD’s victory in Saxony-Anhalt marked a “watershed moment” in German politics, according to Roland Abold, the managing director of Infratest Dimap, a German election research institute. Abold said that the result heaped pressure on Merz and the federal government, as “calls for a change in political direction and a reassessment of cooperation with the AfD are likely to intensify.”
The CDU for now is standing behind Merz, the most unpopular chancellor in modern German history after 16 months in power. But if the CDU faces further heavy defeats in the upcoming elections, questions about Merz as the party’s leader could escalate, said Stöcker.
The AfD already has its eyes on his job. Alice Weidel, the national AfD’s co-chair, announced on Monday that she wants the party to win “at least 40% of the vote” in Germany’s next federal election in 2029.
Ulrich Siegmund, the AfD candidate in Saxony-Anhalt who hopes to become the state premier, said in the same press conference that his goal was “very clear.”
“As perhaps the next Minister-President of Saxony-Anhalt, I need a Federal Chancellor Alice Weidel here in Berlin, so that we can write here history side by side,” said Siegmund.
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post Germany’s far-right AfD, riding state win, targets more gains in elections from east to west appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
I was born after 9/11. I still carry the memories of that day.
Earlier this week, I was talking with my mother over the phone about her experience on 9/11. She walked me through the familiar parts — how she was in our Upper West Side apartment when she learned about the attacks from a relative, how she went to the garage to get the car so they could drive to a friend’s house upstate once she realized the attacks were acts of terror. There were still hijacked planes in the air, and she worried New York City might be targeted again. Then, she said, “This part is going to make me cry.”
I hadn’t remembered what came next, but suddenly it came back to me. “Oh no, me too,” I said.
While she waited for my father to come back uptown from his office in the Financial District, she stopped inside a fire station across from the garage. Inside was a lone firefighter, who’d stayed behind to man the station while the rest of his company was inside the towers. He was watching the news on television, and my mom stood next to him, watching too, when the towers fell.
“We just lost so many men,” he said.
I wasn’t there when it happened; I wasn’t even alive. But I’d heard this story before, I’d walked dozens of times past that same fire station, which now has a plaque commemorating the seven firefighters who died on 9/11. Hearing the story again on the phone, I found myself walking down the streets of Washington D.C., bawling.
I’m 23, born a year-and-a-half after 9/11. Most Americans my age learned about the attacks in school, as history. I’m part of the 16% who learned through family or friends.
The discovery happened by accident, when I was in kindergarten. My mom and I were in a children’s store on the Upper West Side, when we started flipping through a picture book about the history of New York City. Most of the book was unremarkable, but the end was unexpected: a scene of the smoldering twin towers.
I forget what exactly happened next, but here’s what I do remember: My mom was upset that the shop hadn’t provided a warning about the book’s end, and I was confused about why she was upset. I was five, too young to understand the image and never one to let a question go unanswered; I must have pestered her until she offered up an explanation.
She hadn’t been prepared to tell me about terrorism. She’d been evading the topic for some time, telling half-truths to avoid it. When I’d ask her why we had to take our shoes off in line at the airport, she’d just say it was to make sure no one had anything dangerous, leaving out the part about how a man had tried to get on a flight with bombs hidden in his shoes.
“9/11 is a huge thing for a parent to have to tell a kid about,” my mom told me this week. “You were a happy kid, and I didn’t want you to get scared or traumatized.”
The events, and impacts, of that day slowly unfolded for me as the years passed. I learned that my father had watched from Battery Park as the South Tower fell; he ran westward as plumes of smoke billowed toward him. I learned that my parents had friends who’d died in the towers, one of whom was the father of a boy I grew up with. I remember going to the 9/11 Memorial and Museum when it opened in 2014, feeling sick as I watched footage of people jumping out of the towers.
The New York Times recently interviewed dozens of Gen Z Americans about 9/11. I was struck by how disconnected many felt from the event. “It’s hard to feel sad about something that you don’t remember,” said Annika Heegaard, a 25-year-old now living in New York.
But for me, 9/11 doesn’t feel quite so far away. By now I’ve lived through other mass casualty events, like the Parkland shooting and the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks. But 9/11 is the only tragedy that my family members had such a direct connection to. “It was devastating,” my mom said.
I think the reason I can remember the exact moment I found out about 9/11 is because it changed my view of the world. I remember being almost unable to comprehend that anyone would do what the hijackers did. I wasn’t, as my mom feared, traumatized by learning about the attacks; I didn’t fear for my safety each day. But the knowledge was in some ways a loss of innocence — a discovery that people could do awful things and that the world wasn’t as safe a place as I had assumed.
The post I was born after 9/11. I still carry the memories of that day. appeared first on The Forward.
