By Howard Rotberg
Zorham Mamdani. Screengrab via Youtube
We continue to lose the battle over words -Yes, Mamdani is a Radical Socialist but he is also an antisemitic Islamist.
We Jews must insist that discussions of Mamdani should recognize the danger of Islamism.
Socialism is an ideology that I don’t support but I can live with as long as it is a part of a liberal democracy. Israeli history is much about the socialist Labor Party. However too many politicians who embrace socialism also accept or tolerate anti-Israelism and even antisemitism. We see this in Europe.
We continue to lose the battle over words -Yes, Mamdani is a Radical Socialist but he is also an antisemitic Islamist. My fear is that calling Mamdani and his supporters “radical socialists” makes them less scary than calling them Islamists or such terms as the “red-green” alliance (see below) between leftists and Islamists. Many will see Mamdani’s socialism as a way to extend more fairness and our politico-economic benefits to more people. Those who promote economic socialism and accept as allies those who really promote antisemitic socialism may think they are just “virtue-signaling” for a fairer division of income and more help to the poor or even the working class. In addition, socialists who otherwise are looking mainly at economic socialism don’t see that their policies are likely to breed resentment among those who channel their resentments into blaming their lot in life on the Jews.
Phillip Cart Salzman has explained that “the Red-Green coalition is an alliance of convenience between leftists, including progressives, socialists, and communists, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, Islamists, Muslims who actively pursue the political goals of Islam, such as Islamic supremacism and the punishment of those non-compliant with Islam.
A world that fails to understand the danger of many of the tenets of Islam will also fail to understand the meaning of the term “Islamism” and the various ways that ideology underlies contemporary antisemitism and anti-Israelism.
Ugandan-born Mamdani, 34, said during his campaign that he plans to enact sweeping changes in line with his socialist ideology, including raising taxes on businesses, limiting the power of police and prosecutors, and instituting rent freezes.
Such policies seem to have drawn more attention than his anti-Israel policies. Remember the Nazis chief preoccupation was with the “fairness” that “National Socialism” could bring, much before the obsession with killing all of the world’s Jews became the most immoral of all policies and ideologies.
Mamdani has a long history of anti-Israel rhetoric and policies. He has said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would be arrested if he visited New York, has repeatedly refused to condemn the Hamas terror group, and has promoted claims that Israel is committing war crimes and genocide in Gaza.
Mamdani’s history of pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel activism, goes back to his college days when he started a Students for Justice in Palestine chapter, to his support for the Boycott, Divest, and Sanctions movement against Israel.
His victory comes during a spike in antisemitic violence throughout the city. World Israel News notes that Jewish residents and national advocacy organizations have expressed fear that Mamdani’s win will embolden antisemites.
Zohran Mamdani’s policies focus on “progressive” issues such as affordable housing, increased tenant protections, and raising the minimum wage to $30 per hour by 2030. He also advocates for free public transportation, expanded childcare, and a comprehensive approach to community safety that includes social solutions alongside traditional policing.
The idea that leftists are progressives is another trick in the use of words. And, of course, the world’s oldest hatred (of Jews) is in no way progressive. Again, we must call out the use of such misleading terms.
Socialism as social welfare programs is attractive to many Jews and that part of Mamdani’s platform causes many Jews to vote for him. But this support of “liberal” or Democratic Party supporters must be criticized. The failure of organized American Jewry to prioritize the saving of Jewish lives during the Shoah should make it all the more important not to put economic policy, even social welfare policy at the forefront of our concerns. I suggest that American Jews should feel a duty to understand what is happening to Jews in Europe to make certain that Jewish lives are the priority.
We are starting to see the collateral damage done to the Jewish community which has always prioritized higher education. When that education is given by anti-Israel academic institutions, we now understand that sending children to mainstream universities is a primary step in the destruction of Jewish continuity.
Mamdani’s rise reflects a growing split in the American Jewish electorate, particularly along age lines, about Israel in the wake of the war in Gaza the last two years.
While 56% of Jewish Americans say they are emotionally attached to Israel, that number falls to 36% among those aged 18 to 34, according to polling from The Washington Post.
Mamdani has declined to say he believes Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish state, saying the country should provide equal rights to all residents.
A day after the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks on Israel, which resulted in the war in Gaza, Mamdani issued a statement that did not condemn Hamas or the attacks. He has repeatedly criticized Israel’s actions as a “genocide”
To most Orthodox Jews, Mamdani is a danger, and many will suggest that Mamdani and his supporters constitute an “existential” threat. I am the son of a survivor of Auschwitz and my father lost his parents and then eight year old sister there. So there are reasons why I look at things differently than many people I know. I am writing this during Holocaust Education Week, and I certainly think that if my father was still alive he would note the irony of so many New Yorkers voting for Mamdani during this week. I have addressed my thoughts about we in the Second Generation, in my recent book, Second Generation Radical: The World Through One Man’s Second Generation Lens.
Does Mamdani constitute an existential threat to the Jewish people? In my opinion when the Radical Socialists take their policies from the Islamists, there is an existential threat.
Howard Rotberg is the author of five books including Tolerism: The Ideology Revealed, The Ideological Path to Submission, and The Second Catastrophe
Socialists should love Israel. Once upon a time they did. This isn’t about economics. This is a religious war, for all the inconsistent and incoherent blather about colonialism and imperialism.
AI Overview “Approximately \(93\%\) of Israel's land is publicly owned, managed by the state through agencies like the Israel Land Authority (ILA). This land is either owned by the state itself or by quasi-governmental bodies such as the Jewish National Fund (JNF) and the Development Authority. The remaining \(7\%\) is privately owned. Public ownership: The state, the JNF, and the Development Authority collectively own about \(93\%\) of the land.Israel Land Authority (ILA): This government agency is responsible for managing this vast public land, with most transactions involving long-term leases from the ILA rather than direct ownership transfer.Private ownership: The small percentage of privately owned land is mostly located in urban areas, such as Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.Historical context: Much of the land was brought under state control after Israel's founding in 1948, and the Basic Law: Israel Lands (1960) established that this land should remain in public ownership and not be sold.”
Let’s hear it for landlords and redevelopment schemes.
(cont.) Republican Governor Pataki later restored vacancy decontrol and tried to phase rent stabilization and rent control out. Governor Cuomo won against Working Families Party (like DSA) BDS candidate, Cynthia Nixon, by stealing her thunder in reversing Pataki’s reversal while at the same time issuing an executive order – “first in the nation” in it proudly proclaimed – banning the state from doing business with any individual or entity advocating BDS. Governor Hochul has maintained that. Will she cave? If not, will she cut state funds to NYC if Mamdani carries through on his threat to defund and dismantle Technion’s NYC campus, as one of his first acts?
(cont.) I say this because Elise Stefanik just threw her hat in the ring for governor and she has openly called for abolishing rent stablilization and what’s left of rent control. She had even championed abolishing a law that let tenants investigate their rent history to see if they were being overcharged by landlords before. There was just a big case in the news of a tenant who had been overcharged for 20 years.
I googled: What happened when rent stabilization and rent control were abolished in NYC in the ‘70s.
AI Overview
“When rent stabilization and rent control were effectively abolished in NYC in the ’70s, landlords gained a powerful incentive to evict tenants to charge much higher rents to new tenants. This led to a dramatic increase in tenant harassment, a decline in housing maintenance, and the abandonment of thousands of buildings. The resulting tenant backlash forced the state legislature to pass the Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974, which reinstated rent stabilization for many units and ended the “vacancy decontrol” loophole that had been created.
Immediate consequences of deregulation
Vacancy decontrol incentivized landlords to evict tenants: When rent control was temporarily decontrolled, a landlord could raise the rent on an apartment to market rate once the existing tenant moved out.
Increased tenant harassment: Landlords began aggressively harassing tenants to force them out so they could deregulate and re-rent the apartments at much higher prices. This included both legal tactics, like major capital improvement increases, and illegal ones.
Housing abandonment: The combination of economic distress and the ability to deregulate meant many landlords, especially in poorer neighborhoods, abandoned their buildings entirely. This resulted in thousands of units becoming vacant, with many people losing their homes completely.
Strained housing market: The market rate for new tenants was much higher, and the below-market rents for existing tenants created a disparity where newcomers to the city subsidized long-term residents, creating a “lock-in” effect for many.
Response to the crisis
Tenant activism: The crisis galvanized tenant activism, shifting the focus of advocacy from city to state level to push for stronger protections.
Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974: Facing intense political pressure, Governor Malcolm Wilson signed the ETPA in 1974. This law immediately ended vacancy decontrol and brought many of the previously deregulated units back under rent stabilization.
Long-term impact: The ETPA established the basic framework for rent stabilization that, with various modifications, is still in place today. “
Can the Muslim Brotherhood use this as a lever to power there again as it just did in New York, and as Communists and fellow travelers did in NYC in earlier eras? It’s the third rail in politics. Republicans would have a chance if they didn’t call for abolishing it. NO Republican candidate within NYC for mayor or anything else in memory ever called for that, not Giuliani, not Bloomberg, not Sliwa. Not some guy I don’t remember who I voted for for Comptroller one year (Sorry, I just remembered he ran on the Conservative party line. 😀 ). It’s the kiss of death in places where millions rely on it. They tried that in the ’70s and it caused mass displacement.
“AI Overview
In 2025, Egypt officially approved and began phasing out its decades-old rent control system, a move that is fueling tenant eviction fears and concerns of social unrest. The new law, ratified in August 2025 by President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, replaces the "old rent" system, which had capped rents at extremely low rates and granted lifetime tenancy rights that could be inherited.
The reform was driven by a 2024 court ruling that declared the old rent laws unconstitutional. While landlords welcome the changes as an end to years of financial losses, the reform presents a significant threat to millions of tenants, especially low-income families and pensioners.
New rent law provisions (Law 164 of 2025)
Transition periods: The law establishes a seven-year transitional period for residential units and a five-year period for non-residential units. At the end of this time, the old contracts are terminated, and tenants must vacate.
Phased rent increases: During the transition, rents will be increased in phases.
Initial hike: Rents will first increase by 10 to 20 times the former rate, depending on the property's location (classified as "premium," "mid-range," or "economic").
Annual increase: An additional 15% annual increase is mandated for the remainder of the transitional period.
Alternative housing: The government has pledged to provide state-subsidized alternative housing for vulnerable tenants who are displaced.
Legal changes: The new legislation also allows for expedited eviction procedures in specific cases, such as if a property has been vacant for over a year.
Sources of unrest and tenant concerns
Mass displacement: The overhaul is expected to affect more than 1.6 million families, with many facing steep rent increases and eventual eviction, and critics fear this could lead to widespread homelessness.
Uncertainty of state aid: Despite government promises, affordable housing programs are already insufficient to meet demand. Many fear that relocation will push them to far-flung, less convenient areas.
Drastic financial burden: For low-income families and pensioners, the new market-rate rents will likely be unaffordable. For instance, some tenants who once paid a few Egyptian pounds per month could see their rent rise to thousands.
Erosion of community: The law could disrupt established communities, especially in historic neighborhoods, where properties could be redeveloped for profit after tenants are cleared. Urban experts worry about the erasure of the historic character of places like Cairo.
Criticism of the process: Analysts and housing rights researchers, such as the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, have criticized the law for being rushed and for using outdated tenant data. They argue that the potential social consequences were not adequately studied.
Landlord perspective
For landlords, who have seen rental income eroded by decades of rent caps and high inflation, the law is seen as a long-awaited correction. The inability to earn market-rate rent meant many owners neglected maintenance on their buildings, contributing to urban decay.
Social and political fallout
The reform is widely anticipated to cause social and political fallout. The issue has already sparked heated parliamentary debates, with some lawmakers and media commentators expressing fears of "social unrest". Tenant associations and opposition parties have organized to protest the draft law, arguing it ignores the rights of millions of people. “
😀
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/19v9RaxV43/?mibextid=wwXIfr
I pity the good people of New York. They will now face what Londoners have had to put up with under Sadiq Khan – more fools they, for voting for this antisemitic, anti-
Western Islamist. He should never have been allowed into the US let alone to run for political power.
@liz44 Thank you.