Once upon a time, Britain stood for cultured, civilized humanity, and with the US, eliminated the threat of fascist Hitler and stood firm against the false gods of Marxism. Britain is now sinking into third world status. Its culture and values are derided and cancelled.

I was always aware of the underlying antisemitism in British society. To do a good deed was described as, “the Christian thing to do.” And British education included an important cultural icon, the Glorious Crusades. That’s what they were called then.

Pope Urban II summoned the faithful in 1095 to wrest the Holy Land from the Muslims, who at that time were far more civilized than the barbaric Europeans. We are now seeing new crusades. Every bit as dangerous and counterproductive as those earlier ones.

The Crusades were supposed to be religious European missions to conquer the Holy Land from Muslim infidels and atone for all their sins — a holy war that on the surface united the European Christian world.

Over the next 200 years, at least seven different crusades swept through Europe and into the Middle East. Different armies and gangs went looting, raping, torturing, and murdering anyone not Christian in their paths (overwhelmingly, the Jews, of course).

Initially, the Crusaders were successful in conquering Jerusalem and massacring the Jewish population when they got there. But they squabbled and fought amongst themselves, and turned what was supposed to be an ideological, moral, and humanitarian mission into a horrific era of death and destruction.

Of course, most Christians did not see the crusaders that way, but as noble fighters for truth. We were taught in school about brave King Richard, who led his men on the third crusade, joining Phillip of France and Barbarossa of the Holy Roman Empire in a crusade to the Holy Land. But they failed, and Richard was kidnapped on his way home and held for ransom. Later, I learned that it was Jews who paid his ransom. They were not loved for it. And finally King Edward expelled them from England in 1290.

Historians still argue about what caused this Crusader movement — whether it was social unrest, unemployment, plagues, or the need to remove the unruly and get them out of the way. Whether it was genuinely about religion, or more about economics and power.

The Crusaders believed that they were right, that it was God’s work that they were doing. After all, they did offer the Jews the opportunity to convert and join the faithful (or face death). But it was always the stubborn Jews who refused to accept the blandishments of Christianity and Islam, and simply wanted to be left alone.

We are now seeing new crusades of mobs. Not just to fight for the rights of others, but to destroy those who already have them. We are seeing unabashed calls to destroy the Jewish State, retake its land, and drive out its citizens. Across the civilized world, there are howling mobs stirred up by fanatics, and funded by ideological and political enemies of the Jews. As in the crusades, disparate sects and ideologies who hate each other and espouse conflicting moral viewpoints, now combine in their hatred.

The likely new mayor of New York City has called publicly and repeatedly for a world jihad against the Jewish State. And unbelievably, he is supported both by left wing Jews and some Hasidim. We Jews have never learned the lessons of history.

The only saving grace is that such crusades of conflicting ideologies are bound to turn against each other and fail. But not before they do inestimable damage.

What is happening in Gaza is a tragedy. All war is tragic. But it was self-created and there were other options. Even some Arab statesmen agree. I do not see anyone able to control this hatred or violence. Hamas feeds on it. But this does not mean we will not survive and thrive as we always have. To see how history is repeating itself, I recommend reading Jews vs Rome: Two Centuries of Rebellion by Barry Strauss.

The author is a writer and rabbi, currently based in New York.

In Gaza, every public institution falls under the direct supervision of Hamas-affiliated terrorists. From journalists to the health ministry and civil defense, Hamas has embedded itself in every aspect of life.

In yet another textbook example of terrorists embedded in Gaza’s institutions, the IDF revealed in June 2025 that the “Gaza Civil Spokesperson,” Mahmoud Bassal, is an active Hamas operative.

His words are frequently echoed throughout the media, shaping and distorting the narrative of Israel’s war against Hamas — often without attribution to his Hamas affiliation.

ABC News took that one step further, interviewing Bassal as an emergency responder searching for missing Gazan civilians.

Not once did it cross the interviewers’ minds to do the most basic due diligence a journalist can — a background check on those being interviewed.

ABC News has a responsibility to acknowledge the affiliation of an interviewee, particularly if it is relevant to the story they are covering.

This would have been the case had ABC noted that those searching in the rubble were members of Gaza’s Civil Defense: a Hamas front organization. But ABC didn’t even do that.

The Gaza Civil Defense is under the jurisdiction of the Minister of the Interior, meaning it is also responsible for public reports of casualty numbers following an Israeli airstrike that targets terrorists. Every report and statistic it publishes is filtered through the lens of Hamas’ agenda, carefully crafting the narrative that it wants the international community to believe.

Yet, Bassal isn’t just working for the Hamas-affiliated Civil Defense as an innocent, unknowing Gazan. He is also an active member of the Zeitoun Battalion of the Izz-ad Din-al Qassam Brigades, Hamas’ military wing, directly involved in planning and executing terrorist attacks.

His dual role as both a “civilian” spokesperson and a terrorist in a military battalion underscores how Hamas blurs the line between civilian and military functions, using everyday institutions to further its terror objectives.

Thus, any interview with him is inherently dangerous as it risks further amplifying Hamas propaganda — a risk that becomes even greater when both his Hamas-affiliated “civilian” organization and his own active role in a military battalion are omitted from the story.

Journalists covering Gaza have a responsibility to distinguish between genuine civilian witnesses and representatives of a terrorist organization. Without the proper acknowledgment, Western media risks becoming a conduit for terrorist messaging rather than an accurate reflection of reality.

ABC News owes its audience an explanation and a public clarification.

The author is a contributor to HonestReporting, a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.

There must be consequences when politicians endorse and campaign for unpalatable candidates for public office in order to court that candidate’s political base. I am just one voter, but I am ready to commit to issuing some.

I am a lifelong Democrat and consider myself a centrist liberal on most issues. The last times I recall voting for a Republican were in 1992 — 33 years ago! — when I supported Bill Green in his unsuccessful campaign for reelection as the U.S. representative from New York City’s largely Upper East Side congressional district, and then in 2001 when I voted for Mike Bloomberg for mayor of New York City.

But, like many other centrist Democrats, I have been watching with ever-increasing concern as the party I once considered my political home has moved further and further away to the left — indeed, often to the extremist far-left — on an issue I care about deeply.

The fundamental right of the State of Israel to exist — its geopolitical and moral legitimacy, as it were — is one such pivotal issue. Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Mario and Andrew Cuomo, Chuck Schumer, and Kirsten Gillibrand all identified and identify as supporters of Israel even while they may have criticized particular policies of one Israeli government or other.

This is not true of Zohran Mamdani. The Democratic candidate for mayor of New York City is a declared and uncompromising anti-Zionist. He comes by his inflexible antagonism toward the Jewish homeland honestly — his father, Mahmood Mamdani, Columbia University’s Herbert Lehman professor of government, has demanded for years that Israel divest its endowment from companies that invest in Israel, and his mother, filmmaker Mira Nair, pointedly refuses to attend Israeli film festivals.

Zohran Mamdani considers the likes of the anti-Zionist academics Edward Said and Rashid Khalidi as his intellectual mentors. While at college, he founded the Bowdoin chapter of the radical Students for Justice in Palestine.

All this is known. Mamdani never made a secret of his hatred of — as opposed to disagreement, even harsh disagreement, with — Israel and Zionism. As a result, he engages in some of the most extreme, bordering on the absurd, antisemitic conspiracy theories imaginable. In 2023, we learned this week, he told a far-left group that alleged violence on the part of New York police officers is somehow masterminded by the Israel armed forces: “We have to make clear that when the boot of the NYPD is on your neck, it’s been laced by the IDF.”

If ever there was a clear incitement to antisemitic violence, violence against Jews, this is it. And yet a host of prominent New York Democrats, rather than distancing themselves from if not affirmatively repudiating Mamdani, have not only endorsed him but are actively campaigning for him.

Among this lot are New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, State Attorney General Letitia James, U.S. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, and State Sen. Liz Krueger. All of them purport to be appalled by the surging antisemitism around them, and yet they stand by their candidate.

Mamdani claims not to be antisemitic, only pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel, and his above-listed supporters assist him in threading this particular noxious needle.

I’m not the first Jewish voice to say they’re attempting an impossible task. “Mamdani’s distinction between accepting Jews and denying a Jewish state is not merely a rhetorical sleight of hand or political naivete — though it is, to be clear, both of these,” warned Rabbi Elliot Cosgrove in his courageous sermon. “He is doing so to traffic in the most dangerous of tropes, an anti-Zionist rhetoric.”

But I might be the first Jewish voice to say publicly that I will never again cast a vote for any of the Democrats who have endorsed Mamdani. For me, at least, his supporters have crossed a moral and ideological Rubicon, and they have forced me, with not inconsiderable trepidation and reluctance, to do the same.

While Nadler, who announced that he will not seek reelection in 2026, is a lame duck, many of Mamdani’s other acolytes appear to still want to have a political future beyond Nov. 4. I will not countenance that.

Politicians by definition tend to make strategic decisions they deem to be in their self-interest. The more high-minded, not to say ethical, ones among them draw the line when it comes to issues of principle. More likely, or perhaps, more frequently, they will balance competing considerations and opt for what they consider to be their most advantageous pragmatic option.

It’s true that supporting Mamdani may seem like a rational, if not especially ethical, choice. Numerous polls have shown that support for Israel has diminished, especially among younger voters. Thus, the cynical calculation behind some of the Mamdani endorsements may well have been that the future support of such anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian voters would more than make up for any loss of disaffected pro-Israel Democrats like me.

Still, Hochul’s early endorsement of Mamdani’s candidacy could well end up being an albatross around her neck next year when she seeks reelection. Especially if the now prevailing anti-Israel sentiment recedes once the Israel-Hamas war is in the rearview mirror. The same goes for Mamdani’s other cheerleaders. Pendulums have a way of swinging back toward the center.

I, for one, will not vote for Hochul again. And yes, that means that I am open to supporting a palatable Republican nominee for New York governor. It’s not an easy conclusion for me to reach or decision to make, but I don’t see how I can do otherwise — and while I might be the early in declaring it publicly, I hardly think I will be alone.

I am writing in advance of the Tuesday’s election, which I hope may yet turn out to be a surprise, come-from-behind win for Andrew Cuomo. I am also doing so in advance of the inevitable attempts at fence-mending that will follow, regardless of the result.

I know New York’s centrist Democrats will try to win me back, and I know that the forces acting on Republicans may well make a return attractive. But I am making this vow now because I am distressed that while Mamdani’s mainstream allies may not have consciously written off the New York Jewish community, they are hoping for collective short memories on our part. I know, even if they do not, that Jewish security and survival have always depended on remembering.

—
The post I won’t vote for Democrats who backed Mamdani. I know I’m not the only one. appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.