

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
There is an inherent danger in conflating Israel with the religion of Judaism and, by extension, conflating criticism of Israel or Political Zionism with antisemitism.
In the days before the election for mayor of New York City, a group of rabbis issued a “A Call to Action” attacking public figures like Democratic candidate Zohran Mamdani whom they say “refuse to condemn violent slogans, deny Israel’s legitimacy, and accuse the Jewish state of genocide.” The rabbis’ letter then leaps to the unfounded conclusion that Mamdani’s support for Palestinian human rights and his critique of Israeli behavior is acting to “delegitimize the Jewish community and encouraging and exacerbating hostility toward Judaism and Jews.”
In addition to this logical fallacy, there is an inherent danger in conflating Israel with the religion of Judaism and, by extension, conflating criticism of Israel or Political Zionism with antisemitism. This matter has long been a subject of debate, in particular, within the Jewish community.
During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, as the idea of Zionism was being debated by European Jews, there were competing currents of thought, even amongst those who agreed that the Jewish people had a connection with the biblical land of Israel. Some saw the connection as spiritual; others had a more secular cultural bond. While some in these two camps sought a partnership with the Arabs who inhabited the land, the view that came to dominate the new movement advocated, instead, for an exclusive Jewish state in Palestine. It was called Political Zionism and, tying itself to British colonial ambitions in the Middle East, this movement described the Arabs of Palestine in the same way the British defined those whom they subjugated in other lands—objects of contempt who were undeserving of rights.
In the early 1920s, a British journalist reported witnessing a group of European Jews carrying flags bearing the Star of David marching through the streets of Jerusalem chanting “Jerusalem is ours,” and “We want a Jewish State.” The journalist observed that Jerusalem’s inhabitants—Christians, Muslims, and Jews—were mostly befuddled. The flag with the star was foreign to them, as were the slogans. Arabs who objected to the march were accused of attacking Judaism because the flags included a Star of David. They were not. They were objecting to the European Jews’ claim that Jerusalem was theirs, as well as the marchers’ stated goal of ignoring Arab rights and supplanting them with a colonialist-supported foreign state.
As the British designs on Palestine and their pledge to the Political Zionist movement became known, the Arabs of Palestine came to understand the portent of that early Jerusalem march. During the next three decades, a bloody conflict unfolded.
While American Jews had some sympathy for their co-religionists in Palestine, the majority did not embrace Zionism or Israel as their self-identity. This was true even after the 1948 War and Israel’s Declaration of Independence.
In the 1960s, several factors combined to make a change in American Jewish attitudes toward Israel: the US was in the midst of the Cold War; the McCarthyite anti-communist surge that was tinged with antisemitism; and the anti-Vietnam war and the civil rights movements that combined to challenge the American identity. In this context, the successful 1960s hasbara film, “The Exodus” and Israel’s victory in the 1967 war played significant roles in moving American Jews to demonstrate greater affinity with Israel.
But affinity and financial support were not enough for Political Zionists. They continued to push the notion that Zionism and Judaism were the same. In the 1970s, leaders of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), a group that had long been in the vanguard of defending Jews against bigotry, co-authored a book entitled, “The New Anti-Semitism,” advancing the case that because, in their view, Israel was so central to Judaism and Jewish identity, being against Israel was the newest form of hatred against Jews.
It was decades before this dangerous conflation took hold. Efforts by the powerful pro-Israel lobby to pass legislation in Congress equating criticism of Israel with antisemitism were repeatedly stymied by both Republicans and Democrats. When the arena shifted to the states, the pro-Israel forces were more successful. To date, more than three dozen states have passed such controversial bills, threatening protected speech.
In the wake of the public outrage that followed Hamas’s October 7th, 2023 attack, the ADL and its allies in government and media saw the opportunity to press hard make the case that the student protests against Israel’s war on Gaza were threatening to the identity of Jewish Americans.
It didn’t matter to them the protests were against Israeli actions not Jews, nor that polls were showing that Jewish Americans were deeply divided over Israeli policies. Instead, they supported efforts by Republicans to have the protests banned and pushed universities to punish students who engaged in criticism of Israel. Thousands of students were arrested, and many were suspended from their universities and had their degrees withheld. Faculty who supported the students were silenced or terminated, and some foreign students were held for deportation because they had been critical of Israel.
Despite the fact that attacks against both Arab American and Jewish American students increased, the ADL and Republicans in Congress deployed a weaponized definition of antisemitism that slighted Arab concerns or judged them as extremism worthy of criminalization. Meanwhile Jewish concerns were prioritized as legitimate and worthy of full-throated support and action.
One such scene stands out:
During the early campus protests against Israel’s war on Gaza, US television captured a scene which was deeply troubling in its implications. A young Jewish woman with a large Israeli flag draped around her neck like a cape was shown walking right into the middle of a pro-Palestinian demonstration. She was followed by a reporter and camera. Despite her deliberate provocation and the fact that she was ignored by the pro-Palestinian protesters, the woman could be heard saying to the reporter, “I just want to feel safe.”
Enter Zohran Mamdani. He is an elected member of the New York State legislature whose entry into the mayoral contest electrified voters. His charisma and agenda to make New York more affordable has won support from young voters, the city’s working class, recent immigrants, and liberals. After decisively winning the Democratic primary, New York’s financial elites and political establishment mobilized to defeat Mamdani in the general election. While polls are showing him still holding a substantial lead over his main opponent, billionaire donors have poured tens of millions into ads that ironically have used anti-Muslim tropes to defame and smear the candidate and his community.
While there are many issues at play in this contest, the dominant media narrative has been that Mamdani’s criticism of Israel is making the city unsafe for Jews. This is easily disproven by the most recent poll of Jewish voters showing Mamdani tied with his nearest competitor—and leading by two to one among Jews between the ages of 18 to 45.
Mamdani’s support of Palestinians and his agreement with almost all US and international human right groups (including Israeli organizations) that Israel is committing genocide is not antisemitic. This shouldn’t threaten Jews. In fact, the threat to Jews comes from those, like the ADL, who falsely equate all Jews with Israel’s deplorable behaviors. Or the rabbis who use false charges to incite against a candidate whose one crime has been to tell the truth.
A story about another former Republican governor, Charles Evans Hughes—who defended the rights of socialists even though he was not one himself—offers an important contrast when it comes to Cuomo, as unprincipled as any man can be.
The entire country will be watching as New Yorkers go to the polls tomorrow to elect the new mayor of the city. Zohran Mamdani, the Muslim-American democratic socialist whose meteoric rise to the top of the Democratic field has made him the front runner, is a dynamic, young, and progressive candidate who symbolizes both vigorous resistance to Trumpism and the possibility of meaningful social democratic policy innovation. He has campaigned brilliantly, and his victory would be all but assured were it not for the sour grapes, independent candidacy of the disgraced ex-Governor, Andrew Cuomo. Cuomo, long a self-serving bully willing to practice gutter politics in order to win at all costs, has waged a ruthless campaign, seeking to link Mamdani to 9-11 and Hamas and red-baiting him as a “far-left” socialist who would destroy both the Democratic party and the city itself.
Cuomo’s current campaign would be pathetic if it weren’t so polarizing, toxic, and downright reactionary.
A little over a century ago, another New York ex-Governor also decided to enter the political fray to address the challenges posed to New York by socialists. But he was a man of principle willing to stand against red-baiting, at a time in which it was even more prevalent than it is today, in the age of Trump—and that is saying a lot.
Charles Evans Hughes, unlike Cuomo, had not been driven from office by scandal. Elected Governor in 1906, he chose to step down in 1910 to accept his nomination, quickly confirmed, as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, where he served for six years before stepping down again, this time to accept the 1916 Republican presidential nomination. It was after losing that election to Woodrow Wilson, and returning to private practice as an attorney, that Hughes came forward to vigorously defend the rights of socialists and of the Socialist Party.
In 1920, the Great War had recently ended, the Wilson administration had prosecuted and decimated the Socialist party, Gene Debs was behind bars—from where he ran for president–and the first Red Scare was in full swing. In New York state, the Lusk Committee—the Joint Legislative Committee to Investigate Seditious Activities—was working overtime to infiltrate, harass, and arrest a wide range of organizations on the left, including the Socialist party and the newly-formed Communist party. As Adam Hochschild has documented in American Midnight: The Great War, A Violent Peace, and Democracy’s Forgotten Crisis, it was a time of violent suppression of civil liberties and a hostility toward the left that severely compromised even the rudiments of constitutional democracy.
That year, five Socialists who had been elected to the New York State Assembly were summarily suspended by their peers, by a vote of 140 to 6, on the grounds that they were members of a dangerous organization that had opposed the war, supported the Russian Revolution, and was in thrall to an “invisible alien empire” bent on world revolution.
It was then that Hughes stepped forward to defend the Socialists in the name of the Constitution and democracy itself.
In an open letter addressed to the Assembly Speaker, Hughes declared that “It is not in accordance with the spirit of our institutions, but on the contrary, it is absolutely opposed to the fundamental principles of our Government, for a majority to undertake to deny representation to a minority through its representatives elected by ballots lawfully cast.” If individual members of the Socialist Party were considered guilty of actual crimes, Hughes held, then “let every resource of inquiry, of pursuit, of prosecution, be employed to ferret out and punish the guilty according to our laws.” But, noting that no such inquiry had been pursued, and the evidence of criminality was nonexistent, he insisted that to suppress “masses of our citizens combined for political action, by denying them the only resource of peaceful government,” is both foolish and wrong. Hughes continued: “I speak as one utterly opposed to Socialism and in entire sympathy with every effort to put down violence and crime. But it is because I am solicitous to maintain the peaceful processes essential to democracy that I am anxious to see Socialists as well as Republicans and Democrats enjoy their political rights.”
In response to widespread public outcry, Assembly leaders finally agreed to conduct an actual hearing, as the rules required, which quickly concluded with the official expulsion of the Socialists. (The proceedings are recorded in Albany: The Crisis in Government, edited by Louis Waldman, one of the five. This is a very interesting and important text that ought to be more widely known).
Hughes’s powerful appeal to democratic principle went unheeded, and when he sought to speak against the expulsions at the Assembly hearing–this time as head of a New York Bar Association committee established to challenge the expulsions–he was indeed prevented from speaking. But he had taken a principled stand against a politics of vituperation and demonization, and on behalf of freedom of expression and political pluralism.
Hughes had no personal stake in the controversy about the exclusion of the Socialist legislators and the veritable banning of their party. Yet he believed himself to have a stake in democracy. And taking the position that he did placed him at odds not only with many in his party, but with the propaganda-infused consensus of the society at large. For while he was not part of the “political minority” of Socialists whose rights he defended, he was very much in the minority for even taking the rights of the Socialists seriously.
Hughes was a man of principle. And while his challenge of the Socialists’ expulsion from the New York state Assembly failed, he went on to serve as US Secretary of State, from 1921-1925, in the Republican administration of Warren Harding (who commuted Debs’s prison sentence), and then as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court from 1930-1941.
Cuomo is as unprincipled as any man can be.
If he is able to win this week’s election, he will have joined his nemesis-turned-ally, Donald Trump, in furthering a politics of Know Nothing reaction and anti-socialist fear-mongering.
New York City deserves better, and American politics deserves better.
And Cuomo? He deserves to be remembered as a thug whose loss in tomorrow’s election was the final nail in the coffin of a career marked by arrogance, scandal and disgrace.
There is a truth that many of those who think themselves untouched by war are unable or unwilling to understand. War never goes away.
Not long ago, I received a Facebook "friend" request from Jean, an individual I had known in grammar school. It was nice to hear from her, that she was in good health, and doing well. Over the subsequent weeks, we exchanged pleasantries, read each other's posts, and caught up somewhat with how our lives had progressed over the past 50 or so years.
The pleasantries were rather short-lived, however, as Jean rather quickly became disenchanted, perhaps annoyed is more accurate, with my "preoccupation" with politics, social issues, and the "fact" that my Facebook commentaries and analyses—"rants" she called them—were, in her opinion, "unhealthy, self-destructive, and downright anti-American." She expressed what I took to be a heartfelt concern for my well-being, that I was such a sad and angry man, unhappy with my life and my country, and obsessed with a war some 50 years gone. She knew I had been a Marine in Vietnam, had heard over the years that I had been affected by the experience, but only now realized the severity of my condition—a Facebook diagnosis.
"As a friend," she counseled me that I should stop with the politics, protests, and dissent, put the war behind me and go on with my life. None of this, of course, was new to me, and, I would guess, to many others who had participated in war. So, I politely thanked her for her concern and advice, and continued with my protests, dissent, and "rants" about politics, issues of social justice, and war.
Not long afterward, however, having grown frustrated, I guess, with my unwillingness to follow her advice and make the necessary "positive" changes in my life, she wished me well. After a final expression of concern for my well-being (she was aware of the 17.6 veterans who committed suicide each day), Jean terminated our interaction, “unfriended me” in Facebook jargon.
She was right, of course, at least about how the war had seriously impacted my life, how I had become both sad and angry. Sad that upon returning home to the "world," I no longer fit in. How I felt alone, alienated from friends and family members and how for the longest time, I was unable to maintain a relationship or keep a normal job. She was right as well about my being angry. Angry about how I felt used by my country, lied to about the necessity and justice of the cause for which so many lives were devastated. Angry that the hopes and dreams I had for my life were never realized, and, most tragic, angry that many of our leaders and fellow citizens learned nothing from the debacle... and we are doing it all again.
She was wrong, however, in her assumption that in a life amidst the chaos and unrest, I hadn't tried to achieve a sense of normalcy and well-being. Damn, I had tried a whole lot. Perhaps Jean was right, however, and my inability to heal was the result of a choice that I made, to recognize and accept responsibility and culpability for the crimes perpetrated upon the Vietnamese people. That I had no right to “come home” when so many others were never afforded the opportunity; the 3.8 million Vietnamese, the 58,281 fellow Americans whose names are inscribed on the Wall of Remembrance in D.C., and the over 50,000 Vietnam Veterans who died by their own hand.
Eventually, I realized a truth that many of those who think themselves untouched by war are unable or unwilling to understand. War never goes away.
Perhaps the best that can be hoped for, I think, is to continue the struggle to accommodate the trauma, the pain, and the suffering (the PTSD); the guilt, the sadness, and the anger (the Moral Injury); and to find a place for it in one’s being. Easier said than done, of course, a Sisyphean task I will struggle with for the rest of my life.
The election of Mamdani in New York City would indeed send a message across the country and the world.
On Tuesday, New York, the largest city in America, has an opportunity to elect Zohran Mamdani, a young man, a democratic socialist, an immigrant (at age seven), a Muslim, a progressive, and someone hated by Donald Trump. And no wonder, since he’s the antithesis of Trump. No wonder he brings fear to the reactionary forces largely represented by the president and his supporters.
Zohran Mamdani is one of nearly 3.1 million immigrants now living in New York City, close to one-third of its total population. Its inhabitants are 30.9% White, 28.7% Hispanic or Latino, 20.2% Black or African American, and 15% Asian. There are also 800 languages spoken in New York City, and nearly four million residents speak a language other than English. That fact does anything but warm the hearts of reactionary folks, since many of them worry about what’s known as “replacement theory,” an idea created by White nationalist Republican strategists to scare the hell out of their base.
Mamdani is running a very New York-focused election campaign, but one that also speaks to low-income and moderate-income voters across this nation. So many in Donald Trump’s America are now facing the possibility of either losing their healthcare or having healthcare that’s simply far too expensive and doesn’t cover what they need. All too many confront rising housing costs or their inability to purchase a home. All too many are seeing the cost of college reach a level that makes it unaffordable for their children and are now experiencing significant healthcare expenses, whether for young children or elderly sick parents, that have become suffocating.
Here in New York City, poverty is already double the national average. One quarter of New Yorkers don’t have enough money for housing, food, or medical care. Twenty-six percent of children (that’s 420,000 of them!) live in poverty. Of the 900,000 children in the city’s public school system, 154,000 are homeless. (And sadly, each of these sentences should probably have an exclamation point after it!) In the face of such grim realities, Mamdani, among other policies, is calling for a freeze on rents in rent-stabilized apartment buildings in the city; making buses free; offering free childcare for those under the age of five; building significant amounts of new affordable housing; improving protections for tenants; providing price-controlled, city-owned grocery stores as an option; and raising the minimum wage.
At its most basic, the Mamdani campaign is about affordability and the dignity of working people.
Make no mistake: Zohran Mamdani distinctly represents the “other” in Donald Trump’s universe. In that world, he’s viewed as not White, which is in itself a crime for so many of the president’s supporters. Trump has always been a divider. As the Guardian reported in 2020 in a piece headlined, “The politics of racial division: Trump borrows Nixon’s southern strategy,” the president warned that, if Joe Biden were to replace him as president, the suburbs would be flooded with low-income housing.
He’s backed supporters who have sometimes violently clashed with Black Lives Matter (BLM) protesters across the country. He even refrained from directly condemning the actions of a teenager charged with killing two protesters in Kenosha, Wisconsin, suggesting that he might have been killed if he hadn’t done what he did. He’s also called the BLM movement a “symbol of Hate.”
With such rhetoric, the president is indeed taking a page or two out of the 1960s “southern strategy,” the playbook Republican politicians like President Richard Nixon and Senator Barry Goldwater once used to rally political support among White voters across the South by leveraging racism and White fear of “people of color.” Much of what drives Republican strategists today is figuring out what can be done to slow and mute the browning of America. It’s always important to remember that race is almost invariably a critical issue in the American election process.
The election of Mamdani in New York City would indeed send a message across the country and the world that this — my own city — is a place where immigrants can achieve political office and thrive. It would send a message that an agenda focused on low-income people — promising to provide them with opportunity, access to needed resources, and assistance — is a winning approach. In truth, Mamdani’s platform and agenda could undoubtedly be used to attract large groups of Americans who might indeed upend the political situation in many conservative districts across America. In other words, it — and Mamdani — are a threat.
As an observer of the Mamdani campaign, I can’t help reflecting on the civil rights struggle I was engaged in during the 1960s in the South. The challenges were enormous and the dangers great, but we made lasting change possible.
I hear a lot about the number and intensity of the workers in the Mamdani campaign. From my own past experience, I believe that the intensity of those involved in his campaign, the fact that many of them are workers, and their focus on affordability add up to a distinctly winning combination.
Let me now break down the future Mamdani experience as mayor of New York into four categories:
Vision
Zohran Mamdani has what it takes to be a great mayor because he has a vision that speaks to so many sectors of New York’s population, emphasizing as he does the dignity of working people and hope as an active force to put in place meaningful programs for a better future. He articulates a future for this city that is more equitable and will make it so much more livable for so many. As a politician, he’s both an optimist and unafraid to propose big solutions.
Dignity
At its most basic, the Mamdani campaign is about affordability and the dignity of working people. I’ve lived in this city for nearly 60 years and raised my family here. My wife was born here and has lived here her entire life. She was raised by a single father who worked for a fabric company. We managed to build a middle-class life, but right now such a future is anything but a given for so many in a city that has become all too difficult for working people to remain in and create a life worth living.
Make no mistake: Zohran Mamdani distinctly represents the “other” in Donald Trump’s universe.
It’s no small thing that, at this moment in the city’s history, Mamdani has made affordability the central issue of his campaign and suggested that a more affordable New York can be created based on a tax increase on those earning more than a million dollars annually. His focus on the dignity of working people and their families allows his message to have a deep resonance among the population and reach the young, the middle-aged, and the old. His focus is on how New York City can restructure its operations so that it serves us all, not just the well-off and the rich.
Hope
I suspect Zohran Mamdani recognizes that his focus on dignity is also connected to “hope,” and that such hope would be an active force in achieving change. His version of hope isn’t about mere optimism. It’s much broader than that. I was a member of the last generation born into segregation and a Jim Crow system in the American South. During my college days, the most powerful voice for dignity and hope in America was Martin Luther King Jr. He was just 26 years old when he was asked to lead the fight for civil rights and against segregation and Jim Crow in Montgomery, Alabama. Though that fight, in which I was a participant, did indeed seek to end segregation, it was equally about securing a sustainable economic life for Blacks. Indeed, Martin Luther King lost his life fighting for a decent wage for sanitation workers in Memphis, Tennessee.
Zohran Mamdani has been influenced by Dr. King when it comes to his focus on the issues of Dignity and Hope (which should indeed be capitalized in Donald Trump’s America). In a recent interview in the Nation Magazine, responding to a question about how he defines himself, and if he considers himself a democratic socialist, he said, “I think of it often in terms that Dr. King shared decades ago: ‘Call it democracy or call it democratic socialism. But there must be a better distribution of wealth within this country for all God’s Children.’” King believed that hope was not a passive but an active force. As he once said, “We must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope.”
Inclusiveness and Outreach
I spent 36 years working in the New York City and New York state government, much of that time as the leader or commissioner of agencies impacting the daily lives of citizens. I served under mayors Ed Koch, Mario Cuomo, David Dinkins, Michael Bloomberg, and Bill de Blasio. I was City Personnel Director, Commissioner of Human Rights for the State of New York, and Director of the Bureau of Labor Services. I finished my government service with a 16-year stint as Deputy Fire Commissioner for the Fire Department of New York City. And I know one thing: it’s critical to have vision and purpose if you plan to lead such a city successfully. In addition, a mayor can only put in place big ideas and see them to fruition if he’s connected to all the diverse constituencies and array of institutions that also work daily to reach citizens. In terms of outreach, Governor Mario Cuomo, the father of Andrew Cuomo, once told me that he judged a commissioner by how much time he spent in the community talking and listening to people as opposed to sitting in the office.
New York City has a population of 8.5 million people, which swells each day to more than 15 million, if you include all the commuters and visitors who must be served. With an annual budget of nearly $116 billion, it would be difficult for any mayor to manage. No one can truly be prepared for it, so it’s critical that the mayor selects a group of managers who have the experience and moxie to achieve his or her goals. I’m not concerned about Mamdani’s youth because no one becomes mayor with the singular management skills to confront such a giant budget and the diverse, powerful interest groups within the metropolis. None of those who preceded him, not Koch, Dinkins, Giuliani, Bloomberg, de Blasio, or Adams, could have led the city without the help of a cadre of able managers. Some chose well. Some chose poorly.
It’s critical, though, that if he wins on November 4th, a future Mamdani administration be composed of astute, experienced managers, from first deputy mayor to all the agency heads. And it’s not merely the agency heads who must be capable and well-focused, but all the other managers and deputies within those agencies, too. After all, in New York City, from fiscal crises to snowstorms, sanitation issues to policing, violence in the streets to ethnic tensions, education to housing, union negotiations to potential conflicts with New York State and the federal government, crises erupt on a remarkably regular basis. And don’t forget the more than 210,000 migrants who have arrived in the city since the spring of 2022 in search of an opportunity for a better life. All of that can overwhelm any mayor.
As a result, assuming he wins, Mamdani’s Transition Committee must cast a wide net for the best managers the city has to offer. On the whole, they should be young, yet seasoned. They should be diverse and represent an array of sectors. What he needs are not “yes” personnel but leaders who are themselves astute, critical, and committed to government service. His outreach should be to all races, religions, business areas, and nonprofit groups. As it happens, I’m encouraged by reports in the press of the way he’s already reaching out and I hope he does so in all the years of his mayoralty.
If Mamdani merges a focus on leadership and management with his already clear commitment to expanding affordability, dignity, hope, and opportunity for ever more New Yorkers, then he’ll cement his place in the city’s history and possibly—as Donald Trump grows ever less popular in a distinctly disturbed country—in American history, too.