Latest news with #DemocraticSocialistsofAmerica
USA Today
a day ago
- Politics
- USA Today
The far left says AOC didn't go far enough against Israel. That's concerning.
The far left is so far gone that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is somehow seen as not anti-Israel enough. On July 18, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Georgia, introduced a defense appropriations amendment that would strip Israel of funding for its Iron Dome missile defense system. The amendment garnered just six votes in support. One of the surprising votes against the amendment came from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-New York, who is not an ally of Israel. Ocasio-Cortez has accused Israel of committing genocide in Gaza and voted against all other funding for Israel's offensive capabilities. So voting against stripping Israel of Iron Dome funding might seem like a switch for her. It's not. She ultimately voted against the larger legislation to help Israel. Still, her vote on the failed amendment was met with backlash from the far left because she wasn't aggressive enough in her denunciation of Israel. That criticism of AOC makes it clear that even just opposing Israel's offensive in Gaza is not enough for the anti-Israel left, who demand that you also support stripping Israel of its defenses. They are not interested in peace; they are interested in more dead Jewish far left and far right have something in common there. AOC's position on Israel isn't enough for the far left 'Marjorie Taylor Greene's amendment does nothing to cut off offensive aid to Israel nor end the flow of US munitions being used in Gaza,' said Ocasio-Cortez on X. 'What it does do is cut off defensive Iron Dome capacities while allowing the actual bombs killing Palestinians to continue.' While I disagree with Ocasio-Cortez's characterization of Israel's campaign in Gaza, her position makes sense from her perspective that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. Opinion: What does antisemitism look like in America? A grandmother killed in the street. AOC eventually voted against the final defense spending bill itself, which authorized an additional $600 million in aid to Israel. However, that wasn't enough for the far left. The Democratic Socialists of America, by whom AOC was once endorsed, demanded she go further against Israel. They are upset that AOC didn't also support the amendment. 'An arms embargo means keeping all arms out of the hands of a genocidal military, no exceptions,' wrote the Democratic Socialists of America in a statement. 'This is why we oppose Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's vote against an amendment that would have blocked $500 million in funding for the Israeli military's Iron Dome program.' The Iron Dome is Israel's only defense against rocket attacks from any of its hostile neighbors. About 30,000 projectiles have been fired into Israel since the Oct. 7, 2023, terror attacks, which started the latest war between Israel and the Hamas terrorist organization that controls the Gaza Strip. Democrats remain divided on Gaza Those who are against funding for the Iron Dome aren't trying to limit Israel's ability to continue its military campaign in Gaza. They are trying to strip Israel of its defensive capabilities, leading to its destruction. The very same can be said about the Republicans who voted in favor of Greene's amendment. Opinion: America's mental health field is overrun with antisemitism. It's dangerous. In 2024, the issue of Gaza isn't why the Democrats lost, but it certainly did not help. People have theorized that it contributed to why Vice President Kamala Harris chose Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz over Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro as her running mate in her presidential campaign, and it probably contributed to Harris losing the swing state of Michigan. The anti-Israel left is not the dominant wing of the Democratic Party, but they certainly have influence. AOC is learning this now, and it's something she needs to navigate if she has aspirations to higher office as a Democrat. The far left demands complete agreement on their slate of issues, and that makes them a difficult group to navigate for Democrats, even for someone like AOC. They must figure out how to win without these voters, or how to weave them back into the fold if they want electoral success. Dace Potas is an opinion columnist for USA TODAY and a graduate of DePaul University with a degree in political science.
New York Post
2 days ago
- Politics
- New York Post
Zohran Mamdani ripped for using ‘Zionist' as punchline — as critics warn NYC mayoral race is at ‘code red situation'
Israel-bashing Democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani is catching flak again — for once using 'Zionist' as the punchline to an insulting joke, critics claim. Jewish New Yorkers were outraged over the recently resurfaced video of the mayoral race frontrunner speaking before the Democratic Socialists of America in 2023. 'If you don't clap for El-Yateem,' Mamdani said, 'You're a Zionist!' 3 A newly resurfaced video shows Zohran Mamdani calling someone a 'Zionist' as a punchline to an insulting joke. YouTube/Democratic Socialists of America He was referring to Lutheran pastor and Palestinian community organizer Khader El-Yateem, who ran unsuccessfully for a Brooklyn City Council seat in 2017. Mamdani, the 33-year-old Queens assemblyman, then said, 'It's a joke, you don't have to clap.' But Israel supporters weren't laughing. 'The turning of 'Zionist' into a slur in mainstream western liberal spaces is the most significant antisemitic development of the 21st century,' said podcaster Blake Flayton, who posted the video on X. 'This man is about to be mayor of New York,' said Flayton, host of 'We Should All Be Zionists,' of the Democratic nominee. 'I don't think people yet understand how much of a code red situation this is. The severity of the moment,' he added. 3 The Democratic nominee for mayor of New York City was seen speaking at an event for the Democratic Socialists of America in 2023 when he made the insensitive remark. Instagram/@zohrankmamdani Others defended Mamdani, noting he clearly said he was joking. But Flayton was having none of it. 'It's not funny — racist/antisemitic jokes are not funny,' he posted. Todd Richman, co-founder of Democratic Majority for Israel, responded, 'Disgusting.' Every morning, the NY POSTcast offers a deep dive into the headlines with the Post's signature mix of politics, business, pop culture, true crime and everything in between. Subscribe here! 'Enough of the 'l'll protect the Jewish community.' I'm sorry but I don't believe him,' Richman continued. 'He has been perpetuating an anti-Zionist and therefore anti Jewish agenda since college. Now all of a sudden he is going to change?' Joseph Potasnik, executive vice president of the New York Board of Rabbis, said to add Mamdani's 'You're a Zionist' quip to the pile of comments and positions that the City Hall hopeful will have to explain, particularly to the Jewish community. 'He has to address comments he has made in the past that are controversial — and in some cases offensive,' Potasnik told The Post Tuesday. 3 Mamdani was referring to Khader El-Yateem, a Lutheran pastor and Palestinian community organizer, when making the joke, as he told the audience, 'It's a joke, you don't have to clap.' Facebook/Khader El-Yateem New York City has the largest Jewish population outside of Israel, most of whom are pro-Israel or Zionists, said Potasnik, adding of Mamdani: 'We're going to hold him accountable.' Former Queens Councilman Rory Lancman also highlighted Mamdani's history of anti-Israel statements and positions. 'Deploying 'Zionist' as an epithet comes naturally to someone like Mr. Mamdani who fundamentally, and unabashedly, opposes the right of the Jewish people — and only the Jewish people — to self-determination, freedom, and safety in their ancestral homeland, and demands of every Jew that they renounce this central aspect of their Jewish identity as the price for social and political acceptance into civil society,' said Lancman. 'Mamdani believes deeply that every Jew must bend the knee.' During his 2023 speech, Mamdani praised the DSA for backing the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement against Israel. 'We mean what we say when we say we have a socialist politic. It is consistent, it is universal, and it stands for justice in every place with no exception,' he said. The Anti-Defamation League calls the BDS movement antisemitic for seeking to undermine the world's only Jewish state. Mamdani is a supporter of the boycott movement against Israel, even leading a pro-Palestinian rally chanting 'BDS!' and criticizing other elected officials for visiting the Jewish state. The DSA was an an early endorser of Mamdani for mayor and the backbone of his successful Democratic primary campaign. The candidate has been on a charm offensive since defeating ex-Gov. Andrew Cuomo and other Dem hopefuls in the primary last month. He has been seeking to expand his base of support for the November general election, meeting with business bigwigs, party leaders and Jewish officials. His campaign declined to comment on the 'You're a Zionist' line. Mamdani has come under fire for refusing to condemn the phrase 'globalize the intifada.' After meeting with Jewish elected officials, he said he now discourages people from using the rallying call. Mamdani also previously faced criticism for appearing to defend al Qaeda fiend Anwar al-Awlaki — and blaming America for turning the prostitution-loving cleric into a terrorist in 2015 tweets.
New York Post
3 days ago
- Politics
- New York Post
Democratic socialists blasts AOC for voting against Republican anti-Israel amendment
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., is getting broadsided from her left over her vote on an amendment aimed at blocking U.S. funding for Israel's Iron Dome. The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) are criticizing the progressive firebrand for voting against an amendment by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., to block $500 million in Congress' annual defense spending bill that was aimed at helping fund Israeli missile defense systems. Advertisement 'An arms embargo means keeping all arms out of the hands of a genocidal military, no exceptions. This is why we oppose Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez'[s] vote against an amendment that would have blocked $500 million in funding for the Israeli military's Iron Dome program,' the DSA said over the weekend. The DSA noted she did vote against the defense funding bill itself, thereby 'voting against funding for the imperialist military-industrial complex and the Israeli genocide.' The group added, however, 'We were further deeply disappointed by her clarifying statement on her position on the Iron Dome.' 'Along with other US-funded interceptor systems, the Iron Dome has emboldened Israel to invade or bomb no less than five different countries in the past two years,' the DSA said. Advertisement 4 Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., is getting broadsided from her left over her vote on an amendment aimed at blocking U.S. funding for Israel's Iron Dome. LP Media 'The fact that Representative Ocasio-Cortez acknowledges that Israel is carrying out this genocide makes her support for military aid all the more disappointing and incongruous. We urge the representative to continue voting against the Iron Dome, whether it is part of a larger defense spending bill or as a stand-alone bill.' The DSA commended Reps. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich.; Ilhan Omar, D-Minn.; Summer Lee, D-Pa., and Al Green, D-Texas, for voting against the amendment. Fox News Digital reached out to Ocasio-Cortez's campaign and congressional office for comment. Advertisement 4 The DSA noted Ocasio-Cortez did vote against the defense funding bill itself, thereby 'voting against funding for the imperialist military-industrial complex and the Israeli genocide.' REUTERS She posted on X after the vote, 'Marjorie Taylor Greene's amendment does nothing to cut off offensive aid to Israel nor end the flow of US munitions being used in Gaza. Of course I voted against it.' 'What it does do is cut off defensive Iron Dome capacities while allowing the actual bombs killing Palestinians to continue. I have long stated that I do not believe that adding to the death count of innocent victims to this war is constructive to its end,' she said. 'That is a simple and clear difference of opinion that has long been established. I remain focused on cutting the flow of US munitions that are being used to perpetuate the genocide in Gaza.' Advertisement The clash exemplifies how Israel continues to drive an ideological wedge within the Democratic Party. 4 The DSA is criticizing the progressive firebrand for voting against an amendment by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (above), R-Ga., to block $500 million in Congress' annual defense spending bill that was aimed at helping fund Israeli missile defense systems. Annabelle Gordon/UPI/Shutterstock It's not the first time Ocasio-Cortez caught heat from the progressive base for failing to take a critical enough stance on Israel. In 2021, the New York Democrat cried on the House floor after voting 'present' on funding Israel's Iron Dome defense system. 'Yes, I wept,' she wrote in an open letter to constituents after the incident. 'I wept at the complete lack of care for the human beings that are impacted by these decisions. I wept at an institution choosing a path of maximum volatility and minimum consideration for its own political convenience.' 4 The DSA commended Reps. Rashida Tlaib (above), D-Mich.; Ilhan Omar, D-Minn.; Summer Lee, D-Pa., and Al Green, D-Texas, for voting against the amendment. Getty Images The overall bill that passed last week calls for $832 billion in defense funding for fiscal year 2026. Advertisement That's separate from the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), another annual bill that sets defense and national security policy each fiscal year – essentially detailing how those funds will be spent. Greene's amendment to strip $500 million going toward Israeli missile defense programs lost in a lopsided 6-422 vote.
Politico
4 days ago
- Politics
- Politico
Mamdani's social media savvy comes at a cost
A Democratic consultant who was granted anonymity to frankly discuss campaign strategy said running against a candidate affiliated with the Democratic Socialists of America typically entails two strategies: Paint them as too extreme in an effort to limit their support to only the most loyal leftists, or attack their credibility by exposing personal wealth or some other form of privilege. The pro-Cuomo super PAC chose the former. It did not succeed. 'Fix the City's negative paid ads against Mamdani could have been more successful if there had been a viable third or fourth candidate in the race to steer anti-Cuomo votes to. But particularly in the final weeks, it was very clearly Mamdani vs. Cuomo,' the consultant said. 'This made the PAC's attacks on Mamdani less impactful, because whatever concerns voters had about him — and a lot of Mamdani voters had concerns — he still wasn't Andrew Cuomo.' Epstein, Mamdani's creative director, said the campaign was able to reach vast numbers of voters at a fraction of the cost of broadcast spots, with video shoots typically costing in the low four-figures. In the month before the primary, Mamdani's Instagram content was viewed 236 million times, with 62 percent of those viewers not previously following him. More recently, right-leaning news outfits and influencers have been picking up where Fix the City left off. A 2020 interview with The Far Left Show has spawned multiple reports in the New York Post and other outlets. In the spot, Mamdani told the hosts 'the abolition of private property' would be preferable to the current housing crisis and, when asked whether prisons are obsolete, he responded 'what purpose do they serve?' The Washington Free Beacon cited a separate 2020 interview where Mamdani says police officers shouldn't be the ones to respond to incidents where someone 'is going through domestic violence.' And Fox News reported on an old tweet that showed Mamdani directing his middle finger toward a statue of Christopher Columbus. The efficacy of the latest barrage of negative stories, however, appears limited: They are coming out during the doldrums of summer, just as Mamdani is riding high after his decisive primary win and gaining powerful institutional allies. The articles are appearing in outlets, with the exception of the New York Post, that have little sway in New York City elections. And while Mamdani's past positions have in some cases been expressed more crassly than he would want to convey them as mayor, they are not too far afield of his core ideology to alienate voters.
Atlantic
5 days ago
- Business
- Atlantic
Why Zohran Mamdani Is Unlikely to Make Groceries Cheaper
Can the city of New York sell groceries more cheaply than the private sector? The mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani thinks so. He wants to start five city-owned stores that will be 'focused on keeping prices low' rather than making a profit—what he calls a 'public option' for groceries. His proposal calls for opening stores on city land so that they can forgo paying rent or property taxes. Skeptics have focused on economic obstacles to the plan. Grocers have industry expertise that New York City lacks; they benefit from scale; and they run on thin profit margins, estimated at just 1 to 3 percent, leaving little room for additional savings. Less discussed, though no less formidable, is a political obstacle for Mamdani: The self-described democratic socialist's promise to lower grocery prices and, more generally, 'lower the cost of living for working class New Yorkers' will be undermined by other policies that he or his coalition favors that would raise costs. No one should trust that 'there's far more efficiency to be had in our public sector,' as he says of his grocery-store proposal, until he explains how he would resolve those conflicts. Mamdani's desire to reduce grocery prices for New Yorkers is undercut most glaringly by the labor policies that he champions. Labor is the largest fixed cost for grocery stores. Right now grocery-store chains with lots of New York locations, such as Stop & Shop and Key Food, advertise entry-level positions at or near the city's minimum wage of $16.50 an hour. Mamdani has proposed to almost double the minimum wage in New York City to $30 an hour by 2030; after that, additional increases would be indexed to inflation or productivity growth, whichever is higher. Perhaps existing grocery workers are underpaid; perhaps workers at city-run stores should make $30 an hour too. Yet a wage increase would all but guarantee more expensive groceries. Voters deserve to know whether he'll prioritize cheaper groceries or better-paid workers. (I wrote to Mamdani's campaign about this trade-off, and others noted below, but got no reply.) In the New York State assembly, Mamdani has co-sponsored legislation to expand family-leave benefits so that they extend to workers who have an abortion, a miscarriage, or a stillbirth. The official platform of the Democratic Socialists of America, which endorsed Mamdani, calls for 'a four-day, 32-hour work week with no reduction in wages or benefits' for all workers. Unions, another source of Mamdani support, regularly lobby for more generous worker benefits. Extending such benefits to grocery-store employees would raise costs that, again, usually get passed on to consumers. Perhaps Mamdani intends to break with his own past stances and members of his coalition, in keeping with his goal of focusing on low prices. But if that's a path that he intends to take, he hasn't said so. City-run grocery stores would purchase massive amounts of food and other consumer goods from wholesalers. New York City already prioritizes goals other than cost-cutting when it procures food for municipal purposes; it signed a pledge in 2021 to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions associated with food that it serves, and Mayor Eric Adams signed executive orders in 2022 that committed the city to considering 'local economies, environmental sustainability, valued workforce, animal welfare, and nutrition' in its food procurement. Such initiatives inevitably raise costs. Mamdani could favor exempting city-run groceries from these kinds of obligations. But would he? Batul Hassan, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America steering committee and a supporter of Mamdani, co-authored an article arguing that city-run stores should procure food from vendors that prioritize a whole host of goods: 'worker dignity and safety, animal welfare, community economic benefit and local sourcing, impacts to the environment, and health and nutrition, including emphasizing culturally appropriate, well-balanced and plant-based diets,' in addition to 'suppliers from marginalized backgrounds and non-corporate supply chains, including small, diversified family farms, immigrants and people of color, new and emerging consumer brands, and farmer and employee owned cooperatives.' If one milk brand is cheaper but has much bigger environmental externalities or is owned by a large corporation, will a city-run store carry it or a pricier but greener, smaller brand? Mamdani has said in the past that he supports the BDS (boycott, divestment, sanctions) movement, which advocates for boycotting products from Israel. That probably wouldn't raise costs much by itself. And Mamdani told Politico in April that BDS wouldn't be his focus as mayor. But a general practice of avoiding goods because of their national origin, or a labor dispute between a supplier and its workers, or any number of other controversies, could raise costs. When asked about BDS in the Politico interview, Mamdani also said, 'We have to use every tool that is at people's disposal to ensure that equality is not simply a hope, but a reality.' Would Mamdani prioritize low prices in all cases or sometimes prioritize the power of boycotts or related pressure tactics to effect social change? Again, he should clarify how he would resolve such trade-offs. Finally, shoplifting has surged in New York in recent years. Many privately owned grocery stores hire security guards, use video surveillance, call police on shoplifters, and urge that shoplifters be prosecuted. Democratic socialists generally favor less policing and surveilling. If the security strategy that's best for the bottom line comes into conflict with progressive values, what will Mamdani prioritize? This problem isn't unique to Mamdani. Officials in progressive jurisdictions across the country have added to the cost of public-sector initiatives by imposing what The New York Times 's Ezra Klein has characterized as an 'avalanche of well-meaning rules and standards.' For example, many progressives say they want to fund affordable housing, but rather than focus on minimizing costs per unit to house as many people as possible, they mandate other goals, such as giving locals a lengthy process for comment, prioritizing bids from small or minority-owned businesses, requiring union labor, and instituting project reviews to meet the needs of people with disabilities. Each extra step relates to a real good. But once you add them up, affordability is no longer possible, and fewer people end up housed. Policies that raise costs are not necessarily morally or practically inferior to policies that lower costs; low prices are one good among many. But if the whole point of city-owned grocery stores is to offer lower prices, Mamdani will likely need to jettison other goods that he and his supporters value, and be willing to withstand political pressure from allies. Voters deserve to know how Mamdani will resolve the conflicts that will inevitably arise. So far, he isn't saying.
