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.
Animated by a common vision and uncommon integrity, Brad Lander and Zohran Mamdani’s principled progressive partnership is an invitation to imagine something better for New York—and the country.
Brad Lander called me in the middle of NYC’s Democratic primary Election Day, during one of his breaks from the heat. I asked how he was feeling. “To be honest, I didn’t expect this, but I probably feel better than any other third place candidate in history.”
He had good reason to feel this way. As a Jewish candidate for mayor who aligned with and stood by his ostensible rival Zohran Mamdani, Lander had just done something extraordinary—he had modelled a kind of genuine solidarity that is all but unheard of in mainstream politics. What he was celebrating is the joy that comes with rejecting the politics of fear and division and allowing yourself to instead dream beyond the permissible.
As the executive director of a progressive Jewish organization fighting to make New York City a safe, affordable, caring home for all, dreaming beyond the permissible is our mission. Cynical politicians like former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, current New York City Mayor Eric Adams, and U.S. President Donald Trump have made careers out of playing to people’s fears and telling us, again and again, what we can’t do—what is impermissible to dream.
From lying, scare-tactic mailers to TV ads that prompted death threats against his loved ones, the attacks on Zohran Mamdani reflect the worst impulses of a MAGA-friendly Democratic establishment willing to use anti-Muslim bigotry and distorted claims of antisemitism to derail a threat to their power. The viciousness of the backlash in the days following Mamdani’s win has been breathtaking, even to those of us familiar with the extent to which racism and Islamophobia are acceptable in American politics. To politicians who want to weaponize the machinery of fear, New York’s Jewish community might look like a soft target.
In a culture starved for political imagination, Mamdani and Lander represented a thrilling embrace of something new—permission for New Yorkers to reach for so much more than the table scraps we’ve been offered by the political establishment.
Too often that strategy is successful. But what we saw during the primary is that this time they hit a wall built of hope. Despite millions of dollars in attack ads from billionaire donors, it proved impossible to convince most Jewish New Yorkers that Zohran Mamdani was a rabid antisemite. It is telling that the attacks on Zohran come from high-priced political consultants and pundits who experience New York City the same way Andrew Cuomo does—from the back seat of hired black SUVs. For most of us, Mr. Mamdani is a deeply recognizable and loveable New York character. It’s the machine politicians who are the weirdos.
That’s why Jews For Racial & Economic Justice (JFREJ) was able to mobilize thousands of Jewish voters to canvass, knock doors, phone bank, and become an integral part of the people-powered revolution that changed the direction of New York City politics last month. In a culture starved for political imagination, Mamdani and Lander represented a thrilling embrace of something new—permission for New Yorkers to reach for so much more than the table scraps we’ve been offered by the political establishment.
I saw this firsthand canvassing in Kensington, Brooklyn when I knocked on the door of an Orthodox Jewish woman who welcomed me onto her porch and spoke to me for a good 10 minutes. At a moment when so many members of the political class were debating the meaning of the word “intifada,” she wanted to talk about Section 8 vouchers. As her adorable children vied for attention she pointed to the semidetached homes to the right and left of her own. Both were sitting empty, she said, because her neighbors had been priced out. She was excited about Lander and Mamdani’s affordability proposals. The subject of Israel didn’t come up once.
Her story should not and does not minimize the concerns of some Jewish New Yorkers who are focused on safety and antisemitism. JFREJ has been fighting antisemitism for years, and we believe not enough attention and resources are directed to effectively addressing the dangers that American Jews face. But we also understand that most of what allows Jews to thrive are the same things that make all New Yorkers safe—a healthy city that works for all New York’s residents. Cuomo lost because he had nothing of substance to offer any of us. He spent millions stoking fears of antisemitism. Zohran showed up with a bold plan to fight it.
Twenty years after 9-11, when New York’s Muslim community was terrorized by hate violence and illegal New York Police Department surveillance, and several years into the ongoing surge of antisemitism, Lander and Mamdani campaigning arm-in-arm embodied the very best of New York City. For many Americans this was an inspiring lesson in the practice of radical solidarity—something we sorely need in the age of Donald Trump.
Solidarity like this isn’t easy. Lander wanted to be mayor, and would have been great in the role. When he let go of that dream to prioritize solidarity and support for Mamdani, he demonstrated the liberating power of believing that if we dream big enough, everyone wins.
As we head into a hotly contested general election we are already seeing the awful anti-Muslim rhetoric, baseless accusations of antisemitism, and cheap fearmongering we’ve come to expect from the Eric Adams-Donald Trump wing of our political class. New Yorkers deserve more.
Animated by a common vision and uncommon integrity, Brad Lander and Zohran Mamdani’s principled progressive partnership is an invitation to imagine something better for New York. The entire country is watching our city to see if we succeed in November. When we do, our impermissible dreams will transform what elections, politics, and democracy look and feel like in New York City for decades to come.
There is no neutral ground. This is not a policy debate. This is genocide—on camera, with diplomatic cover, and with our tax dollars.
The Israeli government has just put forward one of the most brazenly genocidal schemes in modern memory—and unless we act immediately, the world will once again let it happen.
As reported in Haaretz, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz is proposing to force some 600,000 Palestinians—and eventually the entire population of Gaza—into a fenced-in “humanitarian city” to be built on the ruins of Rafah in southern Gaza. The plan is to “screen” the population, separate out alleged Hamas members, and then pressure the remaining civilians—men, women, and children—to “voluntarily” leave Gaza for another country. Which country? That hasn’t even been determined. The point isn’t relocation—it’s erasure. This reflects a long-standing goal among many Israelis, especially on the right, to take full control of Gaza and clear it of Palestinians.
The United Nations has warned that the deportation or forcible transfer of an occupied territory’s civilian population is strictly prohibited under international humanitarian law and “tantamount to ethnic cleansing.”
While all eyes are focused on a possible cease-fire, Katz is not interested in peace—he’s interested in a “final solution.” A speeding up of the second Nakba we have been witnessing for the past 20 months. In fact, he has stated that construction would begin during a 60-day cease-fire. So what’s the point of a cease-fire, if it’s used to build a concentration camp?
Don’t fool yourself into thinking this can’t happen. It is happening. The groundwork is being laid. The walls are going up. The deportation flights are being negotiated.
Once Palestinians are herded into this camp, they will not be allowed to leave for other parts of Gaza. They won’t be allowed to return to what’s left of their homes, their neighborhoods, their farms, their schools. They will be trapped inside this militarized zone, under constant surveillance, held at gunpoint until Israel can arrange their deportation.
Just think of the tragic, unbearable irony: the Israeli government—founded in the aftermath of the Holocaust—is now building a massive concentration camp for an entire population.
If that sounds unthinkable, look at what Israel has already gotten away with.
For the past 20 months, the world has watched—and largely enabled—a genocidal campaign in Gaza. Over 55,000 Palestinians have been slaughtered, the majority of them women and children. Israel has bombed hospitals, schools, refugee camps, and mosques. It has flattened entire neighborhoods with AI-generated kill lists. It has assassinated journalists, targeted ambulances, destroyed bakeries and water systems.
It has used hunger as a weapon of war, deliberately blocking aid trucks, attacking convoys, and starving the population into desperation. And in a cruel twist, it has created the U.S.-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation—a scheme to funnel aid through Israeli-controlled routes and sideline the U.N. and experienced NGOs. Its so-called “distribution points” are really death traps, where desperate people have been shot day after day as they risk their lives to get a bit of food.
This engineered starvation is not an accident. It is a strategy—a form of collective punishment on a scale rarely seen in modern times.
We have already failed the people of Gaza—again and again. We failed when we looked the other way as children were buried in rubble. We failed when we allowed our tax dollars to fund the very bombs that wiped out refugee camps. We failed when we kept pretending there was still a line Israel wouldn’t cross.
Now Katz is telling us—explicitly—what comes next: mass internment and forced expulsion. And unless we rise up with every ounce of outrage we have, we will fail again.
Let’s be absolutely clear: The infrastructure for this plan is already being built. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. President Donald Trump are lobbying corrupt governments in the Global South to accept the deported. This is not a negotiating tactic to strengthen Israel’s position in cease-fire talks—it is the next phase of a genocide we’ve been watching in real time for nearly two years.
And what is the U.S. government doing? Still issuing meaningless statements about “Israel’s right to defend itself.” Still shipping weapons. Still blocking accountability at the United Nations—and even sanctioning officials like U.N. Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese for daring to speak out.
President Trump could stop this today—by cutting off military aid, backing the International Criminal Court’s investigations, and declaring that forced displacement of Palestinians will not be tolerated. But instead, he’s still dreaming of turning Gaza into a Middle Eastern resort for the ultra-rich.
Meanwhile, more Arab governments stand ready to normalize ties with Israel, making deals with war criminals while their fellow Arabs are starved, bombed, and now threatened with mass exile. Where is the outcry from Cairo, Riyadh, Amman? Is there absolutely no red line?
One bright spot on the international scene is the Hague Group, which will convene an emergency meeting in Colombia on July 15-16. This growing bloc of nations has joined South Africa’s genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice. These countries are taking a courageous stand to uphold international law and defend Palestinian life. Every nation that claims to value justice must join them—immediately.
And here in the United States, every member of Congress must be pushed—loudly, relentlessly—to take a public stand. No more vague language. No more hiding behind mealymouthed scripts. We demand immediate, public opposition to this “humanitarian city” plan—and a full cutoff of military support to Israel. This is a moment of moral reckoning. Choose a side.
Don’t fool yourself into thinking this can’t happen. It is happening. The groundwork is being laid. The walls are going up. The deportation flights are being negotiated.
There is no neutral ground. This is not a policy debate. This is genocide—on camera, with diplomatic cover, and with our tax dollars.
The time to stop Israel’s dystopian plan is not tomorrow. It is now.
Rise up. Speak out. Flood the streets. Bombard Congress. Demand accountability.
Stop the plan. Save Gaza. Before it’s too late.
Well-off Americans have quietly conspired for over 40 years to transfer the riches to themselves, leading to a state of inequality that leaves the entire bottom half of our country with only about 2.5% of total national wealth.
The Trump administration wants us to believe that lower-income Americans, especially Medicaid recipients, are the biggest drain on the country's wealth. That couldn't be further from the truth.
Well-positioned Americans have quietly conspired for over 40 years to transfer the riches to themselves, leading to a state of inequality that leaves the entire bottom half of our country with only about 2.5% of total national wealth.
Whatever wealth exists among America's poor should not be taken away because of some ignorant prejudice of the rich. Following are some of the insidious effects of greed and blame-passing.
A Time report, referring to a Rand study, estimated that "the cumulative tab for our four-decade-long experiment in radical inequality... crossed the $50 trillion mark by early 2020."
To put $50 trillion in perspective, total U.S. wealth at the end of 2023 was about $150 trillion.
Elon Musk is leading the prospective trillionaires with over $400 billion at the end of June, 2025.
Yet with all this wealth rising to the top, American billionaires, according to economist Gabriel Zucman, have an effective tax rate of 8%.
In a blatant example of a system exploited by the wealthy, the tax code includes a so-called stepped-up provision which allows the super-rich to leave much of their multi-trillion-dollar stock market fortunes to their children with all the accumulated gains magically erased, and thus, in many instances, without a single dollar in taxes coming due.
It is estimated that by the middle of this century anywhere from $84 to $124 trillion in assets will be transferred to heirs, much of which will qualify for the tax-free stepped-up provision. So much for our meritocracy.
A Redfin report explains: "The combined value of nearly 100 million U.S. homes reached $49.7 trillion at the end of 2024, while the combined net worth of America's wealthiest 1% has grown to a record $49.2 trillion."
Oxfam summarizes: "The richest 1% of the world's population produced as much carbon pollution in 2019 than the 5 billion people who made up the poorest two-thirds of humanity."
After 40 years of growing inequality, the "Big Beautiful Bill" is about to make it even worse.
Almost 12 million Americans are expected to lose healthcare coverage with the trillion-dollar Medicaid cuts. Major health research cuts are planned for the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Most damaging could be the impact on the kids. Even though nearly 1 out of 5 households with children in America experiences food insecurity, the administration is cutting the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) by a quarter-trillion dollars over the next decade. A Propublica report states: "The staff of a program that helps millions of poor families keep the electricity on, in part so that babies don't die from extreme heat or cold, have all been fired. The federal office that oversees the enforcement of child support payments has been hollowed out. Head Start preschools, which teach toddlers their ABCs and feed them healthy meals, will likely be forced to shut down en masse.."
And at a time when young students are struggling to deal with the pressures of a social networking society, the administration is cutting over a $1 billion in youth mental health funding.
The poor seem to have nowhere to turn. A Vera report explains: "Almost every state has at least one law that bans activities people experiencing homelessness engage in simply to survive. Laws that prohibit panhandling, loitering, living in vehicles, or sharing food and water in public spaces all discriminate against people experiencing homelessness, as authorities eject them from public spaces, confiscate and destroy their property, and transport them to mass shelters and jails."
U.S. Vice President JD Vance shrugged off the "minutiae of the Medicaid policy." President Donald Trump agreed that Republicans were "not doing any cutting of anything meaningful."
But just in case the cuts turn out to be meaningful for Americans, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) assures us that they'll "get over it."
In Trump's world of wealth and status, tolerance for poor Americans has turned into an ugly sense of disdain.
As he has thrown international rules to the side and tried to strong-arm other countries into concessions, his list of demands has resembled Wall Street’s much more than Wisconsin’s.
If you take U.S. President Donald Trump’s word, his foreign policy will finally make American workers great again. Where weak-willed attempts to work with other countries hollowed out the American economy, his belligerent nationalism will push the U.S. up and the rest of the world down. The globalists are for them; Donald Trump is for you!
But taking Donald Trump at his word is never a good idea. As he has thrown international rules to the side and tried to strong-arm other countries into concessions, his list of demands has resembled Wall Street’s much more than Wisconsin’s. He has fought Japan’s car safety standards and India’s price cap on coronary stents. He has gotten Canada and India to drop taxes on tech giants. And in perhaps his biggest victory, six major countries recently caved to his escalating threats and hollowed out a global plan to enforce a minimum tax on big corporations.
That Trump has fixed his ire on this international agreement reveals a broader truth: Internationalism is bad for billionaires. The misguided approach of neoliberal globalization opened up a lane for nationalists to claim that they defend the working class. But in reality, Donald Trump and his billionaire buddies would like nothing more than to play governments against each other. Billionaires can take fragmented countries to the bank—only international cooperation can build a united front strong enough to beat them.
The global corporate minimum tax is a good example of this. (The details are a little complicated, but the super-rich would like to keep it that way, so bear with me as I explain.) In recent decades, major corporations have gotten spectacularly effective at avoiding taxes. Last year, Tesla made a profit of $2.3 billion in the U.S. but paid zero federal income tax. Neither did Merck, Pfizer, and Johnson and Johnson, despite making $45 billion around the world.
Two global dynamics help them achieve this. First, corporations use sophisticated accounting tricks to make their profits show up in countries where they do little actual business, like Ireland and the Cayman Islands—which just so happen to have very low taxes. Second, when countries attempt to raise taxes, corporations threaten to move elsewhere, creating fears of job losses and economic slowdowns that can convince governments to keep taxes low.
Trump’s global bullying successfully beat back two things he hates: international cooperation and taxing the rich.
In 2021, most of the world’s countries agreed to a tax deal that aimed to counter these dynamics. It was highly imperfect, with too many exceptions and rules skewed against developing countries, but it was still an important step forward. One of its key rules was a global minimum corporate tax of 15%. Suppose a Brazilian company paid just 10% in tax for income earned through its Swiss subsidiary. The deal would allow Brazil to apply a top-up tax and collect the remaining 5% itself. This 15% floor meant corporations could no longer drive a race to the bottom in tax rates, as any tax haven with a rate below 15% would just be leaving money on the table—someone else would tax it anyways.
And because congressional Republicans blocked the U.S. from implementing the deal—instead relying on a weaker U.S. version of the minimum tax—that’s what could have happened to American companies. This was how the agreement was supposed to work: If a country like the U.S. was too silly to make sure its companies paid at least 15% in tax, other countries would.
But Donald Trump hated the idea that countries could work together to make sure the likes of Apple, Facebook, and Eli Lilly would pay a fair share of taxes toward schools, hospitals, and roads. In an attempt to spook other countries out of making the corporate minimum tax work, Trump’s tax bill included a “revenge tax” provision that would have hiked taxes on companies from countries that applied it.
In a moment of deep cowardice, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom folded: they agreed to exempt American companies from the minimum tax in exchange for Congress removing the revenge tax provision. While the exact details are not yet clear, it is certain to give a leg up to American corporations avoiding taxes at home and abroad. It will also create a perverse incentive for foreign companies to relocate their headquarters to the U.S. in order to avoid taxes—or at least to hang that fear over countries that consider raising taxes on them. Trump’s global bullying successfully beat back two things he hates: international cooperation and taxing the rich.
The way big corporations have played countries off each other to avoid taxes echoes a tried-and-tested strategy of advancing the interests of the rich. Corporations threaten to move investment out of countries that raise minimum wages or strengthen environmental standards. When countries reject austerity, financial markets often sell off their currency or demand higher interest rates on government bonds.
Rather than falling into this trap, some countries are demonstrating the unity needed to advance a more equitable economy. Last week, Spain, Brazil, and South Africa launched an alliance for wealth taxes on high-net-worth individuals, while eight countries took steps toward taxing first-class plane tickets and private jets. A major United Nations conference led to an initiative that could coordinate developing countries as they borrow funds, rather than leaving them isolated against their lenders.
These efforts model an internationalism different from the form of globalization that dominated the past few decades. Neoliberal globalization advanced a web of agreements that coordinated countries to place a ceiling on taxes and labor standards, not to raise the floor. Developing countries were markets to be opened, not publics to work alongside.
Corporate globalization needed to end—but the problem was that it was corporate, not that it was global. Nationalists promised to reverse this globalization and take back the spoils unjustly taken by others. But Trump has been far more successful int expanding American corporations’ ability to pillage than enabling everyday Americans to prosper. A balkanized world ensures no one is ever powerful or coordinated enough to subordinate the interest of the super-rich to the interests of the public. It doesn’t have to be that way. We can beat the super-rich, but only if that “we” is big enough to include those beyond our borders.