Uncategorized
Zohran Mamdani: The no-yes option
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.
Uncategorized
They met on a Birthright trip then married. Now this American Israeli couple’s internet fame has turned to infamy.
Ethan and Hila Klein first met at Yad Vashem — Israel’s Holocaust museum — in 2007, a meet-cute they recounted, giggling, years later for their millions of YouTube followers.
“I think I went up to her and said something like, ‘They had it coming, don’t you think?’” said Ethan, known for his edgy humor and infamous internet trends, including Vape Nation and Papa Bless. “No I didn’t say that. I wonder if you would have laughed though.”
They were on a Birthright trip, Ethan an American and Hila an Israeli soldier on leave to join the group. Soon after the trip ended, Ethan moved to Israel to be with Hila, and the two began making videos under the name H3H3 Productions (the H for Hila and the 3 standing in as an E for Ethan). They married, moved to America, and started a popular podcast.
A Jewish love story, until Thursday, when Hila, now mother to their three children, accused Ethan publicly of having a months-long affair.
“The betrayal I feel is immeasurable,” Hila said in an Instagram post. “My only family on this side of the world. How do I even begin to make sense of this?”
Ethan reposted her statement.
Their podcast is run by a handful of crew members who often chime in and participate in various skits and bits. The crew also shared a statement saying they stand with Hila and refuse to work with Ethan, though they added they don’t know what this will mean for the future of the show.
A couple roiled by Oct. 7
The left-leaning, secular couple’s videos and podcasts focused primarily on pop culture, internet drama and general politics, not Jewish or Israeli issues.
Both Ethan and Hila would make statements sometimes when tensions in Israel flared, and they would occasionally speak out against IDF actions that upset them.
In 2021, Ethan started a podcast with political commenter Hasan Piker, a controversial left-wing influencer, called Leftovers, a nod to their leftist politics.
Then came Oct. 7.
Ethan, an American Israeli dual citizen like Hila, was horrified by the attacks but quick to call the IDF genocidal in the aftermath. In their first episode together after Oct. 7, Ethan and Piker said the show would continue through their disagreements. The episode was tense, and it was their last.
As Piker’s rhetoric on Israel intensified and became at times antisemitic, the two began a nasty internet feud, culminating in a nearly five-hour livestreamed debate.
Piker posted about the news of the affair on X, sharing a video of Ethan and expressing disgust for men who cheat.
“Now this is a high caliber man [with] good morals,” Piker said sarcastically. He also posted “Judge me by my enemies” after sharing Hila’s statement.
Hila, who owns a makeup and clothing company, increasingly came under scrutiny by Piker and others after Oct. 7 for her service in the IDF. Artists refused to work with her. One model she hired publicly disavowed her after finding out she was Israeli.
The couple was harassed, sometimes online, sometimes in-person, as they attempted to take what they viewed as a nuanced stance in the aftermath of Hamas’ attack on Israel and the ensuing war in Gaza. The united front seemed to fortify their relationship, as Ethan, ever outspoken, routinely came to his wife’s defense.
Their show lost thousands of subscribers, but loyal fans stuck with them — fans who now say they are gutted and confused by the news of the affair. Many in disbelief noted that Ethan had Hila’s face tattooed on his arm less than two years ago as a surprise for her.
“The greatest thing a man can do for his children is to love their mother,” says the quote surrounding the tattoo.
The Forward attempted to contact the Kleins through their work emails and did not immediately hear back.
The post They met on a Birthright trip then married. Now this American Israeli couple’s internet fame has turned to infamy. appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
These Jewish college students have some ‘nonnegotiables’ for El-Sayed
At the University of Michigan, first-year student Robert Kashan, 18, and sophomore Jacob Reich, 19, sat behind a large blue sign. “Some things are nonnegotiable,” it declared in all caps.
The sign laid out their requirements for any candidate seeking their support: a commitment to Jewish safety, “including for Zionist Jews,” and supporting Jewish statehood in Israel, among other positions.
“Zionism is a legitimate part of the Democratic coalition, and a lot of us are feeling less represented by the Democratic Party,” Kashan told the Forward.
The students are part of a broader “Nonnegotiable” movement in Michigan, a coalition of Jewish Democrats who are spelling out their dealbreakers for candidates ahead of the Senate election between Democratic nominee Abdul El-Sayed and Republican nominee Mike Rogers.
The movement has attracted national attention, with hundreds of rabbis across 34 states signing on to the “Nonnegotiable” demands. Meanwhile, about 20 students at the University of Michigan have publicly signed, while hundreds more offered support anonymously, according to Reich.
The “Nonnegotiable” supporters aren’t saying whom they’ll vote for if their concerns aren’t addressed — or whether they’ll vote at all. But they are pushing back against the assumption that Jewish voters will, as the saying goes, “vote blue no matter who,” urging El-Sayed to engage with their demands if he hopes to earn their support.
That’s in contrast with two other Jewish political camps, including a group called Michigan Jews for Democracy that endorsed El-Sayed. Their petition, which has garnered almost 1,000 signatures, notes that some signatories hold reservations about El-Sayed but are voting for him nonetheless as a check on President Trump.
“We understand that a vote is not a valentine; it’s a strategic chess move,” the petition reads.
A competing petition, dubbed “Michigan Jews Against Extremism,” has drawn hundreds of signatures from Michigan Jews who plan to vote for Rogers. That petition similarly emphasizes that Rogers voters may still have reservations about the candidate: “Our vote for Mike Rogers does not require that we agree with him on every issue or that we support President Trump,” it reads.
“Nonnegotiable,” meanwhile, rejects the idea that Jewish voters would have to choose between Zionist and Democratic values. Some have criticized the nonnegotiable movement for ignoring the reality of the electoral choice at hand. Others have called it “a veiled attempt to excuse the actions of Jewish Democrats who want to feel validated about voting for Mike Rogers.”
But Kashan and Reich, who met at Hillel and plan to major in political science, said the “Nonnegotiable” movement was the only way they could see themselves engaging in the election, as they felt increasingly pulled between their identities as Democrats and as Jews.
Some Michigan Jews have expressed alarm at El-Sayed’s questioning of whether Israel should exist as a Jewish state and his decision to campaign alongside controversial Twitch streamer Hasan Piker, who has been accused of antisemitic rhetoric. Rogers, who Trump has endorsed, earlier this week called El-Sayed “anti-Jew.”
In a letter to Michigan Jews, El-Sayed has vowed to “stand up against antisemitism and take the threat of violence against our Jewish community incredibly seriously.” He has also hired a Jewish liaison in the final weeks leading up to the election.
This will be the first election when Kashan, who just turned 18, is eligible to vote, and Reich’s first national election after voting in a local primary in his hometown of Palo Alto, California. For both, voting Democratic in their first major election had once seemed like a given.
“I’m a Jewish Democrat, and I want Democrats to take the Senate,” Reich said. “I want to vote for a Democrat in my own state.”
They’re still holding out hope that will happen — and that, with less than two weeks until the Nov. 3 election, El-Sayed will sign on to their petition.
And if he doesn’t? Neither student is ready to say.
The post These Jewish college students have some ‘nonnegotiables’ for El-Sayed appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Does anyone in Jerusalem care what happens to us?
An Israeli think tank has put on paper what most American Jews know in their kishkas: Israel’s actions over there affect our safety here.
So here’s my question: Does anybody over there care?
The report, published by The Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), drew on the input of 20 Jewish leaders from five countries. It concluded that Israel’s actions since the Hamas attack on Oct. 7, 2023 have normalized hostility toward Israel, divided Jewish communities, sapped the political influence of pro-Israel organizations and fueled antisemitism.
Those actions include damaging statements by government officials, limits on humanitarian aid to Gaza at the height of the war, widespread damage to civilian infrastructure in Gaza and unchecked settler violence in the West Bank. The authors also cited as inflammatory “the proliferation of images of civilian death and suffering in Gaza” — though the actual civilian death and suffering has also alienated and enraged many outside Israel, including Jews.
“The conflict is not only over there in the Middle East, it is local all over the Jewish world now, and Diaspora Jewry has skin in the game,” said Theodore Sasson, one of the report’s authors, in an interview with JTA’s Andrew Silow-Carroll, who first wrote about the study.
To be clear, the report doesn’t excuse, exonerate or rationalize people who commit antisemitic acts. “Jews and Israelis are not to blame for antisemitism,” the report states.
“What we’re saying is that Israel is not the cause” of antisemitism, Sasson said, “but enlightened Israeli policy can seek to maintain robust Diaspora support for the state of Israel and can deny the antisemites the material that fuels their mostly spurious claims.”
This is not a novel connection. Three previous academic studies, in Belgium, Australia and the U.S. found statistically significant links between Israeli military operations that result in high Palestinian casualties and spikes in reported antisemitic incidents abroad. Not surprisingly, a Mellman group poll found that 56% of U.S. Jewish voters believe Israel’s policies have fueled antisemitism.
None of this means Israel shouldn’t act in its own interest and put the security needs of its own population first. Antisemites would continue to exist even if Israelis did nothing but play backgammon and sip arak. The report is not about eradicating antisemitism, but about Israeli actions that provoke and endanger Jews abroad — and what Israel can do about those.
I get the principled resistance to a report that seems to shift some of the burden of antisemitism onto the Jews. David Bernstein of the North American Values Institute told Silow-Carroll that American Jews aren’t agents of Israel, and that nobody would say an African country’s actions endanger African Americans. That’s not entirely true — the 9/11 attacks increased hate crimes against American Muslims and bigots targeted random Asian Americans during the COVID-19 pandemic. Pretending actions have no consequence even if the reaction is illegitimate is principled, but naive. If Israel can lower the temperature, it should.
But here’s the sad fact about the current Israeli government: it doesn’t even lower the temperature for its own citizens.
Exhibit A is Oct. 7. This is the government on whose watch that horror happened, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has never engaged in a full, independent accounting of what went wrong. How do you prevent future Oct. 7s when you don’t know the weaknesses that enabled it in the first place?
Exhibit B is the flydubai near-disaster, which we in the Diaspora have already mythologized as yet another example of Israeli courage and pluck. It was that, but also a result of a complete breakdown of government responsibility. Israel’s rules should have kept the Omani pilot out of that cockpit, but, as Channel 12 reported, Minister of Transportation Minister Miri Regev took no action despite multiple warnings. Regev, a close ally of Netanyahu, remains in her job.
Finally, Exhibit C: Police under National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir have failed to curb violent crime in Israel’s Arab communities which recorded 252 murders in 2025 — and 2026 is on track to surpass that record.
Israel’s supporters often comfort themselves with the mantra that Israelis love life while their enemies love death. But this government has been pretty cavalier about life.
If that’s how Israel’s leaders treat their own citizens, is it so surprising they fail to be overly concerned about Jews abroad? Last year saw the highest death toll from antisemitic attacks in 30 years, while the agency Israel created specifically to deal with such calamities has been AWOL. The Ministry for Diaspora Affairs and Combating Antisemitism, a Tel Aviv University report found, has “not contributed in any meaningful way to the cause, and in some cases has been an embarrassment.”
All this is happening as the screws are tightening on Jewish communities in Australia, France, Italy, Canada and elsewhere. But Israel, established in part to keep Jews safe, has, under this government, too often increased or ignored the dangers. Zionism is supposed to be the Diaspora’s Iron Dome, but this government, by inexorably, deliberately foreclosing on the possibility of a democratic Jewish state, is functionally anti-Zionist.
The report listed several measures Israel could take to reduce the threat to Diaspora communities, among them controlling the incendiary rhetoric of government ministers and opening a diplomatic path with the Palestinians that stops the slide toward a single, non-democratic state.
One of the report’s recommendations is that Israel set up procedures to assess how its policies affect Jews abroad. In other words, the think tank is asking the government to start caring, formally.
It’s hard to imagine any of that happening unless, on Oct. 27, Israelis vote the current government out.
“Netanyahu cannot be part of the healing process. It is Netanyahu from whom we must be healed,” David Horovitz, the far-from-radical founding editor of The Times of Israel, wrote this week in an editorial titled, “For Israel’s Sake, Netanyahu Has to Go.”
As it turns out, it’s for all our sakes.
The post Does anyone in Jerusalem care what happens to us? appeared first on The Forward.
