Zohran Mamdani has the Palestinian protest movement to thank for his win
What makes this win even more remarkable is that Mamdani has refused to back down from his vocal support for Palestinian liberation, a position that has long been a death knell for candidates within a party whose establishment is unabashedly pro-Israel.
Mamdani's victory shows that his support for Palestine is not a liability, nor irrelevant to his mayoral campaign. In fact, Palestine has moved to the heart of domestic politics thanks to an organized, grassroots movement of Palestinians and allies, students and activists, that paved the way for this mayoral win.
Over the course of the last two years of genocide, protests and social media activism has shifted the national discourse around Palestine. A Quinnipiac poll has found that sympathy for Israel has reached an all-time low, with Pew showing that over 71% of Democrats aged 18-49 have a negative view.
On Wednesday, the day of the Democratic primary (as well as the hottest day New York has seen in over 13 years), I stood on the corner of 146th Street and Amsterdam Avenue, trying to convince New Yorkers to rank Mamdani on their ballot. One of the leaders of our canvass was a student who was doxed for fighting for her university's divestment from Israel alongside Mahmoud Khalil. Later that evening, after Cuomo's concession, Mamdani's campaign manager thanked Jewish Voice for Peace, whose chapters are integral in organizing against Israel's genocide and apartheid, for its early endorsement of his campaign.
While Cuomo was rich in money, receiving $26m in Super Pac funds as opposed to Mamdani's $1.8m, Mamdani's wealth was in the people already organized on issues of progressive politics, including Palestine.
The Mamdani campaign's 'joyous' ground game, tens of thousands of people who volunteered to knock on over 1.6m doors, is not simply a story of individuals being organically moved to action by progressive politics or a charismatic candidate. It is instead a story of people who have for years been organizing to oppose an electoral system that marginalized them, who saw Mamdani as an alternative to 'elected officials [who] endorse or overlook genocide' whether they organized through ethnic organizations like Desis Rising Up and Moving (Drum) or the Democratic Socialists of American (DSA).
This is not a campaign that can be recreated with any fresh face, or just any economically progressive platform. Bernie Sanders is wrong to say that Kamala Harris would 'be president of the United States today' had she simply had a platform geared towards the working class, and focused on knocking on doors.
People came out for Mamdani because he rejected a party machinery whose establishment candidate, Cuomo, was literally part of Benjamin Netanyahu's legal team. It mattered that Mamdani started his college's Students for Justice in Palestine chapter. It mattered that Mamdani said he would arrest Netanyahu, that he'd disband the Strategic Response Group of the NYPD, which I'd watched brutalize my City college students as they protested. People came out to campaign for him, rain or shine, because he refused to decry the phrase 'Globalize the Intifada' even as he endured vile smears and a death threat for it.
If the mayoral race is a referendum on Israel, there was a record turnout for Mamdani. People who had not voted in prior elections showed up to the polls, with Mamdani winning in deeply Hispanic and Asian areas, and doing extraordinarily well among young people of all races. Polling showed him second among Jewish voters.
Mamdani's victory in the Democratic primary, however, is just one big step in what will continue to be a tough mayoral race. Perhaps the largest threat this campaign will face is the pressure placed on it by the pro-Israel machinery of the Democratic party. The senator Kirsten Gillibrand suggested he may be a threat to Jewish New Yorkers, Laura Gillen, a congressperson, called him 'too extreme' and Tom Suozzi, another congressperson, said he had 'serious concerns' about his campaign. Mamdani is reportedly scheduled to sit down for meetings with Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries, who have so far declined to endorse him.
Mamdani is also being targeted by the right. In a grossly racist action, the Tennessee Republican Andy Ogles called for Mamdani to be denaturalized and deported, posting on X 'Zohran 'little muhammad' Mamdani is an antisemitic, socialist, communist who will destroy the great City of New York.' And even as she called his campaign 'unique' and 'smart', Marjorie Taylor Green retweeted an AI-generated image of the Statue of Liberty covered head-to-toe in a black burqa saying, 'This hits hard.'
Mamdani's very identity is a challenge to a two-party system that has normalized anti-Muslim hate, and through its prism anti-Palestinian repression and genocide. Trump began testing his mass deportation policy on the Palestinian students who led the movements that made the Mamdani campaign possible, including by kidnapping and imprisoning Khalil, the negotiator for the Columbia encampment. Trump justified his travel ban, which Mamdani's home country Uganda may be added to in the coming months, as part of fighting antisemitism.
What his pathway to victory in the primary shows is that his continued strength, and that of any other candidate hoping to secure a similar victory, will not rely on political endorsements. Instead, it will rely on him staying true to the authenticity that made this campaign resonate with millions of people in New York and around the world.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News
11 minutes ago
- Sky News
The snowy remote army base where Trump will host Putin for talks
Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin will meet on Friday at the remote Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, a US military installation in Anchorage, Alaska. Elmendorf-Richardson combines the Air Force's Elmendorf base and the US Army's Fort Richardson. It is Alaska's largest military base and is home to more than 32,000 people - about 10% of Anchorage's population. The area is also significant for Russia: the US purchased Alaska from the Russian Empire 158 years ago. In fact, Alaska's Little Diomede Island is less than three miles from Russia's Big Diomede Island in the Bering Strait, showing how geographically close the two countries are. During the Cold War, the base was regarded as "particularly important" in defending the US against the then-Soviet Union, according to the Library of Congress. Despite this proximity, Putin will be the first Russian president to visit Anchorage. Some have criticised the US president's decision to hold talks on the Russia-Ukraine conflict in Alaska. "It's easy to imagine Putin making the argument during his meetings with Trump that, 'Well, look, territories can change hands,'" said Nigel Gould-Davies, former British ambassador to Belarus. "'We gave you Alaska. Why can't Ukraine give us a part of its territory?'" Although this will be Trump's first trip to Alaska since beginning his second term, he made several visits to Elmendorf-Richardson during his first term. Joe Biden and Barack Obama also visited; in 2015, Obama became the first US president to set foot north of the Arctic Circle during his trip. Elmendorf-Richardson hosts aircraft like the F-22 Raptor - a fighter jet the Air Force says "cannot be matched by any known or projected fighter aircraft". The US defence department describes the area as having "picturesque, majestic, snow-capped mountains, lakes, rivers, glaciers, and plenty of wildlife". It also advises visitors attempting to drive to the base to bring emergency kits, food, blankets and extra fuel, as it is so remote.
The Guardian
11 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Trump swallowing Putin's lies is a bigger threat to Ukraine than bombs
Wars do not have to be won. Total victories loom largest in the popular imagination because those are the stories nations always tell to sustain patriotic feeling. The fuller version of history is written in stalemates. That is worth remembering when Donald Trump meets Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday. Both leaders have incentives to pretend that Ukraine's fate can be settled decisively without any Ukrainians at the negotiating table. That doesn't make it so. For the US president, this is a project of personal vanity. He promised to end the war within days of returning to the White House. The persistence of hostilities seven months after his inauguration is a rebuke to his self-image as the world's master dealmaker. Putin also once thought the war could be concluded swiftly. He launched his all-out invasion in February 2022 expecting Kyiv to fall within weeks. When Ukrainian resistance thwarted that plan, the Russian president switched to a long game of attrition, relying on superior troop numbers and aerial bombardment to degrade Ukraine's viability as a sovereign state. Russia's industrial base and public opinion have been fired up for perpetual war. Kremlin propagandists boast of the nation's limitless military stamina, while Russian commanders keep promising to break through enemy lines and initiate the long-awaited capitulation. Putin has to believe in the inevitability of Ukrainian defeat because any other scenario – even a ceasefire that allows him to hold territory captured so far – leaves the historic mission he set himself unfulfilled. He will harbour a vengeful grievance for as long as Volodymyr Zelenskyy is president of a country that is free to arm itself and pursue an independent policy of integration with other European democracies. Any border or treaty that prevents the Kremlin dictating Ukraine's strategic orientation is illegitimate in Putin's eyes. That won't prevent him signing bits of paper as a tactical expedient. The Russian president recognises that he has tested his American counterpart's patience. He has lost ground to Zelenskyy in the competition to shape Trump's explanation for why the war persists when he has called for peace. The Ukrainian president has bounced back from his televised humiliation in the White House in February, when he was harangued for ingratitude and blamed for inciting the invasion of his own country. Deft diplomacy, underwritten by Nato leaders pledging to pay Kyiv's military bills, bought a sliver of recognition from Trump that maybe things were more complicated than previously thought; that Putin was prone to 'bullshit'; that his professed interest in peace was contradicted by the volume of bombs he kept dropping on Ukrainian civilians. The Alaska powwow is happening because Trump started setting ceasefire deadlines and threatening Moscow with sanctions. Putin needed to offer some affectation of willingness to compromise. He calculated that the spectacle of a summit, combined with some artfully ambiguous signals around 'land swaps', would appeal to Trump's confidence in his own charisma and his belief that a deal is there for the doing. Putin will use the encounter to frame the conflict in terms that chime with Trump's warped and historically illiterate reading of the story. It is the version in which a devious, criminal Zelenskyy bamboozles a senescent Joe Biden into throwing away heaps of US treasure on a crazy, losing bet. The war is nearly won anyway, Putin will say. Ukraine cannot prevail, but can sucker its allies into throwing good money after bad. He will outline a future of lucrative commercial relations between two great powers whose potential friendship has been sabotaged by a roguish European province that hardly even counts as a proper country. He will make grotesque territorial claims, covering places not yet conquered by Russian troops, and present this as the bare minimum of a reasonable allocation of land to Moscow. He will insist on Ukrainian 'demilitarisation' – in effect guaranteeing the country's vulnerability to some future incursion – and call it essential for the sake of Russian security. We know these are the demands because Putin has been making them for months. He restated them earlier this month. Trump doesn't have to fall in a bromantic swoon at Putin's feet to make the summit a success for Russia. The damage will be done if he emerges from negotiations parroting talking points from the Kremlin script. The fear among Ukraine's European allies is that he will proudly outline a ceasefire proposal on terms that Zelenskyy cannot possibly accept – an unjust, unworkable partition of his country along lines drawn by the tyrant who invaded it. Putin will then claim that he tried to talk peace and only Ukrainian intransigence prolongs the war. Less bleak scenarios are conceivable. Trump's newfound scepticism about Putin might withstand corrosion by flattery. The Russian leader's confidence in an imminent battlefield breakthrough might prove misplaced – a symptom of the brittle, authoritarian ego that only gives audience to sycophants bearing good tidings. He might be overestimating Russia's economic resilience against sanctions. He might one day find ordinary Russians losing the will to sacrifice a generation of young men for a goal of national redemption that keeps receding over the horizon. When the domestic economic and political incentives change, Putin will get serious about a ceasefire. The task of Ukraine's allies is to hasten that moment by sustaining maximum military aid to Kyiv and financial pressure on Moscow. Even then, a settlement would realistically leave some Ukrainian land under de facto permanent Russian occupation, behind heavily fortified lines. It will be a stalemate backed with sufficient deterrents to turn a hot war cold. It could end up looking something like the demilitarised zone on the Korean peninsula, separating two sides that are technically still at war, although the armistice was signed in 1953 For now, the challenge for Zelenskyy and his allies is handling a US president who talks about war and peace in terms detached from any moral, historical or strategic context. Trump draws no meaningful distinction between a settlement that allows Ukraine to thrive as an independent state and one that satisfies the appetite of a Russian president bent on conquest. He values two kinds of deal – those that make him richer, and those that allow him to luxuriate in the status of a great dealmaker. If he thinks such benefits are available by abandoning American allies and interests there is no reason to think he wouldn't do it. That will be Putin's aim in Alaska. He has no intention of ending the war just because the White House demands it, but he knows he must pretend to want peace. And he knows his best hope of defeating Ukraine is to manipulate Trump into bullying Kyiv towards capitulation, while imagining that his own humiliation at Kremlin hands is some kind of personal victory. Rafael Behr is a Guardian columnist
Telegraph
11 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Inside the minds of Trump and Putin, from diplomats who've been in the room
Donald Trump says that within two minutes of meeting Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday, he will know 'exactly whether or not a deal can get done' to end the war in Ukraine. For the Ukrainians and Europeans, there is more than just a whiff of Munich about this summit, with neither party receiving an invitation for the crunch talks. In 1938, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Édouard Daladier and Neville Chamberlain agreed to carve up Czechoslovakia without representation from the Czech government. The concern is that this could happen once again with Mr Trump and his Maga acolytes busy discussing ' land swaps ' and criticising Volodymyr Zelensky for arguing that his constitution bars him from doing so. On the other end of the negotiation is Putin, an autocrat who believes Ukraine is a work of fiction and a mortal threat to his country. The Telegraph has spoken to a host of former officials and diplomats who have first-hand experience dealing with both the Russian and American presidents. Mr Trump characterised his goals for the high-stakes meeting as an opportunity to stare into his Russian counterpart's eyes to judge his plan to end the war in Ukraine. 'I'm going to see what he has in mind,' the US president told reporters. 'I may leave and say good luck, and that'll be the end,' he added. 'Probably in the first two minutes I'll know exactly whether or not a deal can get done,' the US president declared in the White House briefing room on Monday. If he is prepared to walk away at the slightest demonstration that Putin isn't ready to end the war – Mr Zelensky says Russia is gearing up for more conflict – then what does Mr Trump want? It has long been thought that he is desperate for a Nobel Peace Prize and has a particular grudge against Barack Obama for being decorated only eight months into his first term. The Norwegian Nobel Committee cited Mr Obama's 'extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples', which seemed to be more about Mr Obama's promise as an international leader than his actual accomplishments. Mr Trump is the self-styled 'president of peace'. 'As president, he has brokered peace between Azerbaijan and Armenia, Cambodia and Thailand, Israel and Iran, Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, India and Pakistan, Egypt and Ethiopia, Serbia and Kosovo, and with the Abraham Accords,' the White House said. 'Trump and certainly [JD] Vance, they don't care about the future of Ukraine particularly,' Anthony Gardener, who served as Mr Obama's US ambassador to the EU, said. 'I'm convinced Trump does want to position himself as the person who, quote, unquote, brought a sort of form of peace to get a Nobel Peace Prize,' Mr Gardener added. Ending the bloodshed in Ukraine could do that. Others say he's looking for yet another deal to sell as a demonstration of business acumen. There are significant rare earth mineral deposits in eastern Ukraine. That territory is on the table, and Mr Trump has already made a play for it by signing an agreement with Mr Zelensky to be able to mine it. 'Trump wants to bag a win… period,' Mr Gardener said. In his office in the Kremlin, where Putin will be preparing for his meeting with Mr Trump, sits a bust of Catherine the Great. The significance of the monument should not be lost. As Russia's longest-serving female monarch, Catherine dragged the country into the 18th century and during her reign, doubled the size of its empire. David Liddington, a former deputy prime minister, said Putin also compares himself to Peter the Great, 'somebody who is going to restore Russia's greatness and grow Russia's territory, at least its effective empire'. And Putin is likely to double down on his positions, in an attempt to at least cement his control over the Ukrainian territory already seized by his invasion forces. He will leave little of the planning up to his aides, who are mostly believed to be yes men there for affirmation rather than assistance. 'President Putin is secretive, well-scripted and always eager to press an argument that reaffirms his positions rather than his willingness to settle. He reflects the attitudes of someone who's familiar with power play, intelligence and security considerations, not the transactional, commercial kind of negotiation playbook,' Margaritis Schinas, a former European Commission vice president, said. According to Bobby McDonagh, a former Irish ambassador to the UK, Italy and EU, Putin is 'utterly predictable'. 'He will relentlessly and ruthlessly pursue his very narrowly defined idea of Russian interests,' Mr McDonagh added. Those who have been in the room before say the Russian president will likely try to corner his American counterpart by demanding that the structure of their meeting plays out in a specific fashion. 'He prefers meetings structured in two parts: first, with delegations and interpreters that mainly serve as an audience to listen to his position on a particular subject, usually peppered with aggressive comments on those who think otherwise; then, a more closed – usually tête à tête – discussion of principals where he may show some margin of openness,' Mr Schinas said. It is in the latter section of the meeting in which Putin will try to hammer home any wriggle room he has made for himself. 'Putin will keep his eye on the strategic prize. He will look for opportunities to lessen the economic pressure on Russia and the Russian economy,' Mr Liddington said. The UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office estimates that sanctions on Russia have deprived the Russian state of at least £333bn in war funds between February 2022 and June 2025. Any easing would give Putin a significant win. John Bolton, Mr Trump's former national security advisor, told The Telegraph that Putin will use his KGB skills to manipulate the US president. 'That's one reason why Putin really did not want Zelensky or the Europeans there. He doesn't want Trump to be distracted with all these other players,' Mr Bolton said. 'Putin will try to get Trump back into feeling that they're friends again. I think Trump has been disappointed that his friend, over the first six months of the administration, has not helped him reach this deal.' According to Mr Bolton, Putin has 'manipulated Trump on Ukraine really right from the beginning of the administration, but back before the disaster with Zelensky in the Oval Office.' The Russian president is 'going to try and get Trump back on side,' Mr Bolton said, adding: 'He's got to work fast.' 'The outcome will depend entirely on whether Trump resists Putin's known and entirely unacceptable demands,' Mr McDonagh added – referring to a stripped-back Ukrainian army, no prospect of them joining Nato and the recognition of Russian sovereignty over the Ukrainian regions of Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson. The US president is much happier to consult with advisers on his positions in the meeting, but those don't bode well for Ukraine. Tulsi Gabbard, his intelligence chief, is known to not care much for Kyiv. Mr Vance and Pete Hegseth, the defence secretary, have vocalised the need for Ukraine to surrender territory. 'He likes to be surrounded by his team and advisers, allowing them space for contributions, but under no circumstances margin for decision,' Mr Schinas said. This means the US president is unlikely to listen to the European leaders, including Sir Keir Starmer, who are set to hold talks with him on Wednesday. There is one hope among the European and Ukrainian onlookers ahead of Friday. Is Mr Trump prepared to let himself be embarrassed at the hands of Putin? Will he attempt to emulate Ronald Reagan, the former US president credited for the invention of 'Make America Great Again'? Sir Julian King, Britain's last-ever European Commissioner, said: 'You can get unexpected outcomes. 'Reagan at Reykjavik blindsided his allies,' he said, referring to the 1986 summit between the US president and Mikhail Gorbachev which ushered in the end of the Cold War. 'But as they meet for the first time in years, with Putin's maximalist negotiating and Trump's unpredictability, anything could happen.' 'The one potential saving grace, Trump won't want to come out looking like a chump,' he concluded.
