On November 4th, 2025, Zohran Mamdani won the mayoral election of the most Jewish city in the world, earning just over 50% of New York’s vote.1 Among Jewish New Yorkers in particular, an estimated 31% supported Mamdani’s candidacy.2 In fact, Jews were some of Mamdani’s most enthusiastic and visible advocates. Yet, nationally, the organized Jewish community—across all major denominations—launched a historical and perhaps even unprecedented campaign opposing and warning about his potential mayoralship.

Mamdani’s consistent affiliations with radically anti-Israel, anti-Jewish, and at times openly pro-terrorist groups, his centering of anti-Zionism in his own politics, and his soaring popularity among Democrats3 undoubtedly raises profound questions about the future of the Democratic Party and the place Zionism and Zionists will have within it. But the disturbing nature of Jewish support for Zohran, too often devoid of communal concern, forces a difficult discussion about the boundaries of the Jewish community and a reckoning with those who abandoned it.

Mamdani’s Politics

Mamdani’s intimate relationship with pro-terrorist, anti-Israel radicalism spans his entire life, beginning in his childhood and continuing into his political career. During the Second Intifada, Zohran’s father, Mahmood, now a Columbia professor, published a book in which he defended suicide bombing, lamenting that these so-called “soldier(s)” had been “stigmatized” in America. He even cited a Palestinian terrorist as his primary example.4 In 2001, Mahmood reminisced about reading his scholarly work to young Zohran at bedtime.5

As an undergraduate at Bowdoin College, Zohran co-founded a chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP).6 According to a 2016 study, one of the strongest predictors of Jewish hostility on university campuses was the presence of an active SJP chapter.7 The organization would go on to glorify October 7th as “a historic win for Palestinian resistance.”8 They were also the progenitors of the pro-terrorist demonstrations that permeated American university campuses following Hamas’ attack.

In 2017, during his brief stint as a ‘musician’, Mamdani rapped about his “love” for the convicted leaders of a U.S. designated terrorist organization involved in funding Hamas.9

That same year, Mamdani joined the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), forming an alliance that would define the next eight years of his political life. The DSA’s views range from excusing terrorism to outright celebrating it. In the immediate days following Hamas’ October 7th attack, numerous DSA chapters posted statements in support of “the Palestinian resistance,” with one chapter hailing the massacre as “an unprecedented anti-colonial struggle.” On the day of the attack, DSA national urged members to join protests and singled out then Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani—by name—as an exemplar of political activism.10 A week later, Mamdani was arrested at a DSA-advertised anti-Israel protest outside Senator Chuck Schumer’s home. Speaking at a 2023 DSA event, Mamdani stated that “Palestinian liberation” lay at the “core” of his politics and credited the DSA’s position on the issue as the reason he joined the organization.11

Throughout the war in Gaza, the DSA continued to broadcast its terrorist sympathies. Earlier this year, one of DSA’s committees posted “Free Elias Rodriguez” following Rodriguez’s murder of two Israelis in Washington, D.C.12 The organization affirmed “Iran’s right to self-defense”13 and, in a later deleted statement, “mourn[ed] and honor[ed]” Hamas chairman Ismail Haniyeh following his assassination.14

These statements did nothing to dissuade Mamdani. Throughout his political career, Zohran worked in tandem with the organization building a relationship that only intensified during his mayoral run. Days after launching his campaign, Zohran called the DSA his “political home.”15 His inner circle is littered with current and former DSA members and leaders16 who maintain “consistent and seamless communication” with the group, meeting weekly. The DSA was integral to his victory, practically running his campaign. They provided the initial hundreds of volunteers for Mamdani’s canvassing events and recruited many more. At the request of his staffers, the DSA began text-and-phone banking and spearheaded a robust tabling initiative aimed at young voters.17 Zohran Mamdani is not only the political product of the DSA, his electoral success can largely be attributed to his partnership with the organization.

The character of this partnership was on full display during a DSA phone bank held two days before the election and funded directly by Mamdani’s campaign. Jeremy Corbyn was tapped to lead the effort. For those unfamiliar, Corbyn is the former leader of the UK Labour Party, where he presided over one of the worst antisemitism scandals in modern Western politics. Under his tenure, Corbyn and Labour became engulfed in a litany of antisemitic scandals leading to a number of investigations and resignations. A parliamentary inquiry concluded Corbyn had created a safe space for “those with vile attitudes towards Jewish people.”18 A separate, legally binding report, found the party to be in violation of the UK’s anti-racism laws for “unlawful acts of harassment and discrimination.”19 Nine MPs quit in protest. One called the party “institutionally antisemitic.”20 Polling identified Corbyn as “the politician of choice for anti-Semites.”21 He was eventually ousted, and his successor issued a public apology: “We have failed Jewish people.”22 This was the figure that both the DSA and Mamdani enlisted to energize his campaign.

The through-line is unmistakable: Mamdani was raised by a radical, embraced radicalism as a student, and elevated it into his political identity as an adult. Whether or not he agrees with every statement produced by these organizations, the consistency with which they espouse extremism, combined with his unwavering pattern of affiliation makes clear that his ties to anti-Israel, anti-Jewish extremism runs deep. Far from an anomaly, this brand of anti-Zionism is essential to Mamdani’s politics.

Jewish Reactions

It is no surprise, then, Mamdani’s campaign elicited strong opposition from across the Jewish community.

In the Reform movement, Rabbi Angela Buchdal of New York’s Central Synagogue, considered one of America’s “most influential Rabbis” warned that Mamdani had “contributed to a mainstreaming of some of the most abhorrent antisemitism.”23 Rabbi Joshua Davidson of the flagship reform synagogue Temple Emanu-El, penned an op-ed where he wrote that “Mamdani’s candidacy concerns me greatly.”24 Senior Rabbi Ammiel Hirsh of the Stephen Wise Free Synagogue declared that opposition to Mamdani was a Jewish “imperative.”25

Conservative Rabbi Elliot Cosgrove of Park Avenue Synagogue delivered an impassioned sermon in which he proclaimed unequivocally “Zohran Mamdani poses a danger to the security of the New York Jewish community.”26

In an unparalleled display of unity, over 1,000 rabbis and cantors across the Reform, Conservative, and Orthodox movements signed a letter warning about Zohran Mamdani’s “hostility towards Judaism and Jews.”27 Joining their clerical counterparts, the ADL, AJC, UJA, JCRC—nearly every mainstream Jewish institution—issued public warnings.28 Even the U.S. Holocaust Museum, a completely apolitical entity, felt compelled to call out Mamdani’s rhetoric.29

The response from the organized Jewish community was explicit, forceful, and unified: Zohran Mamdani posed a serious danger to Jews. Their words represented genuine fear.

Jews for Zohran

Despite this communal consensus, a number of influential Jews emerged as some of Mamdani’s most vocal champions and dedicated defenders.

Award-winning actor Mandy Patinkin and his wife released a video endorsing Mamdani explicitly “as Jews.”30 On election day, three personalities dubbing themselves “the JEWS” appeared in a campaign video alongside Mamdani, professing their support for him. They recounted their experiences canvassing for Zohran and concluded with an awkward “L’Chaim” in unison.31

One participant was Matt Bernstein, a prominent Jewish social media influencer with over 2 million followers. Throughout the campaign, Bernstein regularly posted in support of Mamdani while minimizing or outright mocking Jewish concern. He accused one Jewish activist of “instilling fear into her audience so she can sell them racism,” and similarly charged that broader communal fears were “just racist” towards Mamdani.32

A group of four progressive rabbis filmed a video wearing Zohran apparel and declared that canvassing for him “is a mitzvah,” a divine obligation.33 After the widespread rabbinic letter opposing Mamdani, a number of Jewish clergy composed a response rejecting Jewish concern and affirming the legitimacy of Zohran’s stances on Israel.34

The most prominent of Mamdani’s Jewish supporters, however, was New York City comptroller Brad Lander, who also ran for mayor himself before cross-endorsing Mamdani. The two appeared together on Colbert’s “The Late Show” where Lander fawned over Mamdani’s “inspiring” politics and rushed to his defense when Jewish concerns were raised, reminding the audience of their “remarkable” Jewish-Muslim partnership.35 Lander later embraced the label “Jew for Zohran” and publicly advocated for “a coalition of anti-Zionists and liberal Zionists,” placing himself in the latter camp.36 Lander is not new to defending politicians like Mamdani. In the words of one commentator, his attitude towards Zohran is “the culmination of years of Lander’s efforts to kosherize anti-Semitism.”37

Despite broader communal opposition, a number of prominent Jewish figures rallied to Mamdani’s side. But this support was far from benign. Through their public words and actions, these Jews routinely dismissed broader community sentiment and leveraged their Jewish identity to provide political refuge for Zohran.

Communal Boundaries

The prevalence of such troubling behavior among Mamdani’s Jewish supporters compels us to consider where the boundaries of the Jewish community lie. But I want to be clear in what follows: I am not saying that Jews must be Zionists. I am not saying Jews cannot support Mamdani. I am not advocating for expelling anti-Zionists or Mamdani supporters from the Jewish community nor am I saying anti-Zionism is in itself an illegitimate Jewish belief. And I am certainly not saying that anyone who supports Zohran or identifies as an anti-Zionist is “not a Jew.” These are impulsive, shallow ideas that only serve to undermine community and shut down necessary discussion. That is precisely the opposite of my intent.

What I am saying is something simpler, truer, but far more difficult: Judaism is fundamentally communal. Our peoplehood is built upon mutual responsibility, not merely individual self-expression. Community, in its very essence, demands and depends on a baseline of empathy among its members: a willingness to take the fears and the pain of other Jews seriously, to share in their tribulations even—especially—when one disagrees with those same Jews.

Our tradition is explicit about this obligation. The Gemara states, “All Jews are responsible for one another.”38 The sage Hillel warns, “do not separate yourself from the community.”39 Maimonides writes that even a person who is otherwise morally unimpeachable but “separates himself from the community, does not take part in their hardships…but rather goes on his own individual path…has no portion in the world to come.”40 A number of other sources share similar sentiments.41

The organized Jewish community responded to Mamdani’s candidacy with extraordinary unanimity, something almost unheard of in contemporary Jewish life. Whether one believes those fears were proportionate or misplaced, they were genuine. They were voiced by rabbis across denominations, institutions throughout the Jewish world, and even the U.S. Holocaust Museum. They emerged at a time of record antisemitism, following two years of persistent demonization and alienation, and an overbearing sense of vulnerability that can be attributed in no small part to the very organizations Mamdani affiliates with. The alarm was communal.

A Jew can disagree with that communal judgment. A Jew can think these fears were exaggerated or Mamdani misunderstood. A Jew can have concerns about Mamdani, but nevertheless feel issues like affordability take precedence. A friend of mine passionately tried to explain that Trump’s “fascism” presents the real threat to Jewish safety in America, and that Mamdani was part of the political antidote. Disagreement is not betrayal. In fact, Judaism holds constructive debate, what we call argument for the sake of heaven, as one of its highest ideals. But there is a way to carry disagreement that preserves community, and many more ways that erode it.

What corrodes the community is the dismissal of Jewish fear, the trivialization of communal alarm, the labeling of Jews as racist when they express genuine concern for their safety. What corrodes it is the repugnant mocking of that fear on social media. What corrodes it is brandishing your Jewish identity as a prop to provide political cover for your preferred candidate. What corrodes it is the audacity of declaring yourself “the JEWS” precisely to negate true Jewish communal sentiment. And what corrodes it is a public celebration on election night, while that very community is still reeling from Mamdani’s victory.

Those who behave this way, who show no care for the community’s pain, no interest in their suffering, do not get “kicked out” of the community. They have simply removed themselves from it. They remain Jews, they might still identify as Jewish, they might even attend synagogue and various Jewish events. But they are Jews outside the Jewish community. They have left Judaism.

The Troubled Committed

Rabbi Donniel Hartman provides a useful framework for understanding the Jews who engage in these different modes of disagreement. He distinguishes between the “trouble committed” Zionists and the “troubled uncommitted” anti-Zionists. For Hartman, both groups are “troubled” in the sense that they are morally frustrated with the gap between what Israel is and what they believe it ought to be. They both have deep disagreements with the Israeli government and its policies. But the “troubled committed” remain unconditionally invested in Israel. Their frustration propels them deeper into the Zionist project, shaping it, criticizing it, but most importantly, taking responsibility for its direction. By contrast, the “troubled uncommitted” have disengaged from Israel completely. They have allowed their troubleness to sever their connection to the community.42

While Hartman applies this distinction to Zionism, it can be broadened to how we think about the Jewish community in general. There are both the “troubled committed” and the “troubled uncommitted” Jews. What differentiates them is not the degree of their troubleness, but how they channel it. Hartman reminds us, it is not only acceptable to be the “trouble committed,” it can sometimes even be an ideal if it is through our troubleness, held in commitment, that we draw closer to the community and help to refine it.

Satmar vs Neturei Karta: A Case Study

A particularly illustrative example of the difference between these two types of disagreement can be found in the contrast between two staunchly anti-Zionist Hasidic groups: Satmar and Neturei Karta.

Satmar traces its anti-Zionist ideology to its founder Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum. Following his escape to America during WWII, Teitelbaum published VeYoel Moshe in 1961, an anti-Zionist manifesto methodically detailing his theological opposition to Zionism. One scholar describes VeYoel Moshe as “the most anti-Zionist and anti-Israeli Jewish text of modern Times.”43 Satmar has since become the largest Hasidic sect in the Jewish world while continuing Teitelbaum’s anti-Zionist legacy.44

Neturei Karta shares a nearly identical ideological background. Both sects had strong historical ties to the Agudat, a pre-war Orthodox anti-Zionist organization. Both possess identical theological opposition to Zionism. And both draw their ideas from Teitelbaum’s writings. Where Satmar and Neturei Karta diverge is in the vastly different approaches they take towards actualizing that opposition.

Over the years, Neturei Karta has joined forces with virtually every enemy of the Jewish people. In the 1980s, Neturei Karta corresponded with Yasser Arafat and allied themselves with the PLO. In 2001, they participated in the notorious UN Durban Conference, an “antisemitic hate fest.” In 2004, they met with the president of Iran and then attended Tehran’s infamous Holocaust denial conference. In 2009, they spent Shabbat with Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Gaza. In 2018, they spoke with Hezbollah leaders. In early 2023, they met with Palestinian Islamic Jihad leaders, a group that would participate in Hamas’s attack just mere months later.

Since October 7th, the Neturei Karta have been in attendance at nearly every anti-Israel protest in the New York area prepared with their Palestinian flags and scarves on top of their Hasidic garb.45 At these protests, the Neturei Karta attempt to portray themselves as the real Jews.46 Like Lander, the Neturei Karta provides political deniability for the anti-Zionists and antisemites with whom they affiliate. When accused of harboring antisemitism, these anti-Zionists often will point to the Neturei Karta in frequent attendance at their events as undeniable proof of their innocence.47

Satmar, by contrast, maintains a principled boundary. While the sect also regularly protests against the Israeli government, you’ll never find them collaborating with enemies of the Jewish people. According to followers, the Rebbe “always insisted” that the Satmar never demonstrate alongside those “who sought Israel’s destruction” or want to kill Jews.48 Satmar also has a longstanding policy of refraining from public protest while the state of Israel is at war.49 Following October 7th, Satmar declared a community-wide “extraordinary ‘Day of Prayer’...amidst the heartbreaking loss and bloodshed of hundreds of innocent Jewish lives” and reportedly continued daily recitations of tehillim, prayers for protection, throughout the war.50

Satmar speaks fiercely against Israel, but it has reserved some of its harshest words for the Neturei Karta. The Rebbe Teitelbaum himself expelled the group back in 1967, and Satmar has consistently denounced their actions ever since. Satmar goes to great lengths to clarify “[Neutri Karta] has absolutely nothing to do with Satmar,” repeatedly expressing frustration over confusion between the groups.51 Today, Satmar’s sharpest critiques often center around Neturei Karta’s collaboration with enemies of the Jewish people:

“They are walking around the world together with…those who shout without any shame [in] support [of] the murders [of Jews], they walk with them in broad daylight with the Shtreimel and the Hasidic clothes and shout together with the haters of Israel and murderers of souls. This is a terrible desecration of [God’s name], to strengthen murderers in the name of the Holy Torah and in the name of heaven.”52

Satmar’s “troubled” anti-Zionist identity is well established, but their rhetoric and behavior reveals a complicated but notable commitment to the Jewish people. Satmar is deeply critical, profoundly troubled, yet morally and communally responsible. While their ideological stance diverges from mainstream Zionism, they do not align themselves with enemies of the Jewish people and do not permit themselves to be tokenized by our enemies. Their commitment and principled boundaries distinguish their moral disagreement from corrosive opposition.

For those curious, after much controversy, only one Satmar leader endorsed Mamdani. The others endorsed Cuomo.53

Conclusion

Mamdani’s intimate connections with radically anti-Israel groups sparked widespread fear among the organized Jewish community throughout his mayoral campaign. While some Jews did support Zohran, their advocacy often dismissed, trivialized, or even mocked these communal concerns. They invoked their own Jewish identity to minimize the perceived seriousness of Jewish alarm and to shield Mamdani from allegations of antisemitism.

The Jewish community rests upon shared empathy, collective responsibility, and genuine regard for fellow members, even those with whom one disagrees. It is not their anti-Zionism, nor their support for a particular candidate that determines their lack of standing. Rather, by failing to demonstrate any qualities essential to our community, many of Mamdani’s Jewish supporters have placed themselves outside of it.

It is entirely possible, and in some cases admirable, to be a troubled yet committed member of a community. Satmar is just one such example of a group that maintains this delicate balance. But when troubledness propels one away from the Jewish community rather than draws one towards it, and commitment falters entirely, they have abandoned the community.

The condition of these Jews is not permanent. Through conscious corrective effort, teshuva, they can, and I hope they will, return to the Jewish community. They need not relinquish their troubleness, but they must choose to hold it alongside an uncompromising commitment.

At the same time, the Jewish community itself must not forget that the demand for communal empathy extends to “troubled committed” members as well. We must make room within our spaces for disagreements and cultivate an environment that, while not normalizing or legitimizing every view, still enables Jews who hold divergent opinions to remain a committed part of communal life.

Mamdani will take office in a few short days. We will soon learn whether the fears voiced by the Jewish community materialize. If—and I believe when—they do, the Jews who supported Zohran, who downplayed the risks of his mayoralty, will be presented with another opportunity to distance themselves further from the Jewish community or to stand in solidarity with it. Ultimately, this decision does not hinge on political agreement, but on whether these Jews choose to remain part of the Jewish people.

Shortly after Inauguration Day, I published my first blog article, satirically titled "Kahane Was Right", examining how Rabbi Meir Kahane, a radical and violent extremist, had identified threats to American Jews long before October 7th and its aftermath shattered the Jewish Establishment's liberal illusions. I concluded by arguing that the best response to these threats "is not a return to Kahane’s violent extremism" or the pursuit of "fleeting political alliances" but rather a "reclamation of...a robust, unapologetic Jewish identity rooted in history, strength, and community."1

In recent weeks, however, American Jewry is embracing precisely the two paths I warned against. Kahanism is not only resurging, but it has returned in its more extreme, more dangerous incarnation—incubated in Israel and now being imported back to America. Meanwhile, the Jewish Establishment hesitates to criticize President Trump and his allies' amplification of antisemitism, presumably due to Trump's strong support for Israel and his crackdowns on anti-Israel protesters. Both trends—the resurgence of Kahanism and the Establishment's compromises on moral integrity—spell profound trouble for the future of American Jewry.

Much has been written about the Establishment's failures to condemn MAGA antisemitism. This piece will instead focus on the seldom discussed yet arguably more alarming phenomenon: the explosion of Kahanism in America.

American Kahanism vs Israeli Kahanism: A Brief History

Like many American Jewish stories, Rabbi Meir Kahane's begins in New York City. Born 1932 in Brooklyn, the young Rabbi Kahane entered the public scene in 1968 during the Ocean Hill-Brownsville teacher's strike, a labor dispute inflamed by racial tensions. Jewish teachers were fired as part of a push to give the predominantly black parents more community control over the school. The firings followed by the various antisemitic sentiments expressed by black activists drove Kahane to form the Jewish Defense League (JDL).2

From its inception, the JDL embraced armed self-defense against antisemitism "by any means necessary"3, frequently employing aggressive, and at times violent, vigilante-like tactics. Kahane and the JDL placed a particular emphasis on the issue of "black anti-Semitism"4 and often resorted to racist language.5 As discussed in my previous article, Kahane was also sharply critical of the Jewish Establishment, lambasting their passivity towards antisemitism and uncritical embrace of liberalism. Kahane regarded liberalism as perhaps the greatest danger to American Jews due to its assimilatory nature that erased Jewish heritage and eliminated Jewish distinctiveness. Kahane's mission in America was to transform the ignorant and cowardly "Old Jew" of liberalism that dominated the Establishment—reluctant to "make trouble"6—into a "New Jew" proud and knowledgeable of his Judaism, unafraid to use his fists in self-defense.

Drawing on his former experience as a journalist for the Jewish Press, Kahane and the JDL expertly navigated the media landscape, orchestrating large provocative demonstrations, and ensuring coverage by notifying the press beforehand.7 Like many other civil disobedience movements, Kahane and the JDL’s approach relied on generating media attention, using the resulting publicity to spread their message.

By 1971, Kahane had given up on America and was facing prison time.8 He decided to make aliyah, moving to Israel. Without Kahane at the helm, the JDL's radicalism evolved. The group went on to engage in bombings, kidnappings, and other violent activities, eventually earning the U.S.' designation as "one of the most active [domestic] terrorist groups" in 1986.9

Kahanism in Israel: From Fringe to Terror

Kahane's career and the evolution of his ideology in Israel is an entirely separate beast deserving a dedicated article of its own. But to appreciate the dangers of this ideology it is essential to understand the extent of extremism, radicalization, and actualized violence Kahanism was and is responsible for in Israel.

Upon landing in Israel, Kahane founded the political party KACH, a party effectively dedicated to an anti-Arab, Jewish supremacist agenda.10 In 1981, Kahane's party took out a full-page ad in an Israeli newspaper detailing the party's platform. It included a law forbidding the “abomination of assimilation and communion with goyim” and adding a mandatory prison sentence for any Arab caught engaging in sexual relations with a Jewish woman. Kahane later vowed that if elected, he would strip all Israeli Arabs of their citizenship and expel those who refused to comply.11 By this point, Kahane had already spent time in Israeli jails, having been arrested over sixty times, including for planning "armed...terrorist attacks against Arabs."12

After two failed election bids, KACH finally garnered enough votes in 1984 to earn a single seat in the Knesset.13 From left to right, the Israeli political establishment was shocked, dismayed, and disgusted. But most of all they were frightened of KACH's popularity. Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir announced he would not permit KACH into a Likud-led coalition14 and famously walked out of the Knesset every time Kahane spoke.15 Menachem Begin had called Kahane a "crazy…dangerous man" and even signed an administrative detention order against him, despite Begin's general opposition to such measures.16 In 1987, Kahane published a book virtually arguing against the idea of Israel being democratic at all.17 By 1988, Kahane was suspended from the Knesset for threatening an Arab member with a noose. Shortly thereafter, KACH was banned entirely from running in future elections by the Israeli Supreme Court for being “manifestly racist.”18 Nevertheless, the political establishment's fears had been vindicated. KACH was now polling at three or four seats.19 Two years later, Kahane was assassinated by an Arab terrorist in New York City.

Though Kahane's own life was cut short, his ideology had a life of its own and found numerous adherents. Yoel Lerner, a KACH member, was convicted for attempting to bomb the Dome of the Rock in 1982.20 Baruch Goldstein, a devoted disciple of Kahane, massacred 29 Palestinian worshipers at the Tomb of the Patriarchs in 1994. Today, his grave, located in the aptly named 'Meir Kahane Park', has become a pilgrimage site for Kahanists, some of whom dress as Goldstein for Purim.21 Another acolyte, Yigal Amir, assassinated Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995 in an attempt to derail the Oslo peace process. These are not outliers or anomalies. They are the natural outgrowths of Kahanist ideology.

Following Kahane's death, KACH splintered into two main groups, with Kahane’s son leading the more radical Kahane Chai. Both the original KACH and Kahane Chai are considered terrorist organizations in the U.S. and Israel.

The brand of Kahanism Meir built in Israel was considerably more extreme, more dangerous, and more violent than the Kahanism of America. It is responsible for terrorism against Arabs and Jews alike. And, in its purest form it is fundamentally opposed to even the idea of Israeli democracy, let alone Arabs participating in it. Kahanists are responsible for some of the most cruel, most terrible atrocities perpetrated by Jews in recent memory. Kahanism is so demonstrably vile, so atrocious, that everybody from Shamir to Begin wholeheartedly rejected it. Nevertheless, this very ideology is now surging in America.

Mainstreaming Kahane

While the events of and following October 7th dislodged the uncritical faith many American Jews had in liberalism, it also left an ideological vacuum in its wake. Alarmingly, Kahanism has seeped into that void, steadily growing in influence over the past few months. Once dismissed as too radical, Meir Kahane's ideas are now being rediscovered, rapidly embraced, and virally disseminated across social media.

Accounts with hundreds of thousands of followers post clips of Kahane's speeches and quotes alongside other Kahanist imagery. In the past few weeks alone, in a now deleted post, the Twitter/X account @JewsFightBack, with over 36,000 followers, posted a video of Meir Kahane giving a lecture.22 Another account, @JewsAreTheGOAT, boasting over 45,000 followers, posted a Kahane quote calling it "Accurate."23 Israel News Pulse, a popular news page with nearly 60,000 followers, tweeted "I know Kahane was right" accompanied by an image of the KACH flag.24

Most concerning is the participation of celebrities and other popular figures in this ideological revival. Nioh Berg, a prominent social media personality with over 200,000 followers, regularly shares Kahane’s words and videos, particularly emphasizing his views on Arabs.25 Lizzy Savetsky, a pro-Israel influencer, sparked controversy when she called a video of Meir Kahane "the truth" in a post to her over 400,000 Instagram followers, causing a media firestorm.26 Even Michael Rapaport, an actor turned pro-Israeli activist with a staggering nearly 700,000 followers, reposted a Kahane lecture27 and later a video of himself enthusiastically shouting "Kahane was always right!"28, a rallying call for the most ardent Kahanists.

While many of these posts refrain from explicitly endorsing Kahane's most extreme positions or direct calls for violence, their mere circulation to a mass audience without any acknowledgement of his extremism invariably serves to mainstream Kahanist fanaticism. These influencers are not fringe figures. They shape discourse and influence many. Together, they create a social environment fertile for spreading, normalizing, and popularizing Kahane's most radical ideas. Their followers, many of whom likely have little prior familiarity with Kahane, are being introduced to him through trusted celebrities, only further legitimizing him in their eyes. This process of gradual exposure breeds normalization. Radical ideas take root. Extremism spreads.

Betar: A Rebirth of The JDL

Kahanism's resurgence is not just returning to America in digital form. It is also materializing into real-world organizations with real-world consequences.

A modern day JDL has emerged under the guise of a historical Zionist youth movement: Betar. Once a thriving Revisionist Zionist organization founded by Zionist leader Ze'ev Jabotinsky, Betar in the diaspora mostly focused on promoting aliyah. By the 1980s it died due to a decline in membership.

The new Betar, however, is not a revival of Jabotinsky’s movement. It is an iteration of Kahane’s American JDL in all but name. But it also enthusiastically embraces the anti-Arabism that defined Israeli Kahanism and is even led by a former Israeli Kahanist leader. The use of the Betar name is especially ironic given how Begin, a strict disciple of Jabotinsky, opposed Kahane himself.

Betar's social media contains a consistent stream of posts echoing Kahanist rhetoric.29 In February, Betar recommended Kahane's most controversial book, They Must Go (1981), where he argues for unilaterally expelling all Arabs from Israel proper30, among other radical ideas. Betar was even involved in recording and posting Rapaport's Kahane endorsement video (before Rapaport reposted it on his own account). Betar also posted a four image collage of "Jewish activism in the 1960s" all of which related to the JDL.31 Three of the images are from JDL demonstrations and in two of them the JDL's logo is clearly visible. The fourth image is of the JDL's infamous 1969 advertisement in The New York Times.32 The ad featured a group of men with bats, clubs, and a stern facial expression, challenging notions of Jewish passivity, and resembling the "New Jew" Kahane wanted to create.

Betar launched its own advertisement campaign using a modernized version of Kahane's "New Jew": the ‘Bear Jew’.33 The Bear Jew is a reference to a character from Quentin Tarantino's 2009 film Inglourious Basterds, which centers around a fictional group of Jewish Nazi hunters during WWII. The "Bear Jew" is the nickname for the most violent member of the group who "bashes [Nazis'] brains in with a baseball bat."34 Betar has repeatedly sought to find "Bear Jews" on "campuses across the USA to lead [Betar] chapters", encouraging students to reach out and embrace a "Bear Jew" identity.

Betar and its "Bear Jew" followers have engaged in and encouraged numerous acts of violence and vandalism. Betar frequently highlights Jews it deems worthy of the "Bear Jew" title, posting videos of these "Bear Jews" recounting the real-world violence they have engaged in.35 NYU released a statement condemning Betar for violent illegal acts committed on their campus in October 2024.36 Further violence broke out this February at an anti-Israel protest in Brooklyn where Betar members waved a Kahane Chai flag37 and warned on social media "We cannot guarantee the safety of those who threaten Jewish synagogues."38

In perhaps the most despicable incident to date, Betar posted a video of a man shouting Islamophobic profanities outside a NYC mosque with the caption "We protest mosques."39 The bigoted display was so incredibly hateful and widely viewed that it earned scathing condemnation from Mayor Eric Adams40 and Governor Kathy Hochul.41 As if they hadn't engaged in sufficient levels of hate, Betar also replied "Not enough. We demand blood in Gaza!" to a list of thousands of names of infants allegedly killed in Gaza.42

Betar's disturbing rhetoric and aggressive behavior is unsurprising given its leadership. Betar's president43, Ronn Torossian, was a former leader in Kahane Chai. In November 1994, Torossian spoke alongside Kahane's son at a Manhattan memorial service for the slain rabbi. Listed as Kachane Chai's "Campus Coordinator", Torossian praised Kahane as "the greatest Jewish leader ever" and urged the audience to "make [Yitzhak] Rabin accountable". He then invited attendees to join him in a protest later that day. The protest would feature celebrations of Baruch Goldstein and chants of "Rabin must die!", just one year before a fellow Kahanist heeded the call.44

Betar's rebirth in the image of the JDL underscores the dangerous growth of Kahanism in the United States. The group's adoption of the "Bear Jew" identity closely mirrors the violent ethos that once defined the JDL. Just as the JDL staged large stunts to attract news media, Betar leverages social media to spread their provocative thuggish messaging. With its every post and its every action, Betar spreads and normalizes Kahanism. Betar's promotion of aggressive violence, its unabashed racism, and its disgraceful terrorist-affiliated leadership not only betrays Jabotsinky's legacy but also reflects horribly on the broader Zionist community.

Establishment And Community Responses

While the American Jewish community has yet to formulate a response to the rise of Kahanism, reactions to Betar have been mixed, ranging from minor condemnation to concerning collaboration.

Shortly following the mosque incident, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) formally added Betar to its database of extremist groups.45 The ADL describes Betar as "Kahanist" and notes that the group is interested in working with the Proud Boys, another "far-right" hate group. While the practical implications of this designation are unclear, the ADL's recognition of Betar's connection to Kahanism underlines its growing prominence.

Strikingly, however, several large Jewish and pro-Israel organizations are actively working with Betar. The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) has included Betar along with its terrorist-affiliated president, Ronn Torossian, on its slate for the World Zionist Congress (WZC) elections. The slate comprises over 30 organizations46, some of which are well established and widely recognized.

Among them is Students Supporting Israel (SSI), a popular pro-Israel group with over 200 chapters47, that has become synonymous with pro-Israel activism on many American college campuses. The Lawfare Project, which plays a key role representing Jewish students in important lawsuits against universities arising from the anti-Israel protests, is also part of the slate.48 Additionally, CAMERA, a media-monitoring organization that claims a membership of over 65,000, has joined this coalition.49

Nevertheless, one particularly courageous and noteworthy action taken to limit Betar's spread deserves special mention. Fleur Hassan-Nahoumm, the former Deputy Mayor of Jerusalem and current Secretary General of Kol Israel–another party running for the WZC–filed a complaint to expel Betar from the election. In her complaint, she cites many of the "abhorrent" social media posts discussed in this article and even accuses Betar of blackmail after the group harassed Shai Davidi, a former Kol Israel slate candidate and pro-Israel Columbia University professor, along with his family. The dispute is ongoing.50

Conclusion

Kahanism is making a troubling comeback in America. Influential online figures and mainstream celebrities increasingly spread Kahane's ideas to their thousands of followers, expanding the boundaries of acceptable discourse, and normalizing Kahane's extremism. But this phenomenon is not confined to the digital sphere. The JDL has been resurrected under the guise of Betar. This group regularly engages in and openly encourages violence. Inspired by the Kahanism of Israel, and led by a former card-carrying Israeli Kahanist, Betar's rhetoric and activities often veer into brazen Islamophobia. Yet, numerous popular pro-Israel organizations continue to work with Betar and even align with them for the World Zionist Congress elections. While some individuals and organizations have taken bold steps to limit Betar's influence, the overall response of the Establishment to the rise of Kahanism has been quite limited.

The shock of October 7th has left deep emotional and ideological fractures, but turning to this brand of extremism is not the answer. The American Jewish community must remain vigilant, collectively reject Kahanist voices, and disavow their toxic behavior. This is not a moment to drift further from Jewish ethical foundations, but rather to reaffirm our genuine Jewish identity.

Few figures in American Jewish history evoke as visceral a reaction as Rabbi Meir Kahane. In most American Jewish Establishment circles, the mere utterance of his name elicits either nervous silence or moralistic outrage. American Jewry has largely sought to erase his memory, embarrassed by his legacy of violent actions and racist rhetoric.1 From founding the Jewish Defense League (JDL) in 1968—soon labeled by the U.S. government as “one of the most active [American] terrorist groups”2—to making aliyah in 1971 and establishing Kach, the only Jewish political party to be banned by the Israeli Supreme Court for being “manifestly racist,”3 Kahane's infamy is well earned.

Yet, the aftermath of October 7th brought definitive clarity to the abundant failures of the Jewish Establishment. While they were busy chasing the utopic fantasy of liberalism, building progressive coalitions, and funding leftist organizations, antisemitism flourished right under their noses unchecked and unacknowledged. When some Jews warned of growing antisemitism on the Left, the Jewish Establishment either ignored or dismissed it as conservative paranoia. The ADL, with regional offices in all 50 states, and Hillel, on virtually every college campus, failed to even notice the cancer growing at their doorsteps. But Kahane did, and he identified the threat 50 years before everyone else. While Kahane’s violent tactics in America were undeniably abhorrent and his entire Israeli career was even further reprehensible, Kahane's almost prophetic American ideas deserve a second look in the face of the spectacular failures of the Jewish Establishment.

Building An American Conceptzia

The Jewish Establishment's greatest failure was its blind faith in liberalism as a means to safeguard American Jews. This belief has its roots from when most Jews first came to America. Throughout the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Jews immigrated from Eastern Europe fleeing deadly pogroms, restrictive antisemitic laws, and impoverished shtetls largely segregated from the broader gentile populations. The American shores, with its liberal enlightenment principles, guaranteed religious freedom, equality, and economic opportunity for the fleeing Jews. Antisemitism existed, but it paled in comparison to the systematic persecution Jews faced in Europe.

America's liberal promise was simple: Integrate into American society, adopt its values, participate in civic life; in return, America would treat Jews as equals. Jews quickly embraced this rare offer for equality. Liberalism became synonymous with Jewish safety and the bulwark against antisemitism.

And so Jews fought hard to protect and expand it, becoming the vanguard of liberal and progressive movements throughout the 20th century and now into the 21st. In the early 1900s, Jews settled in urban centers, often working in factories under harsh, unsanitary conditions. Quickly, they became leaders in the labor movement, creating unions and advocating for workers’ rights. After fighting in World War II, Jews dominated the Civil Rights era, participating in the Freedom Rides, co-founding4 and building the NAACP, and famously marching alongside Martin Luther King Jr. Inequality against African Americans was viewed as an attack on liberal principles and thus, by extension, a threat to Jews’ own safety in America. In recent years, the Jewish Establishment has championed campaigns for LGBT, immigrant, and reproductive rights. Jews even supported the 'Black Lives Matter' movement from the beginning and Jewish philanthropists have donated billions to liberal and progressive causes around the country.

On the rare occasions the Jewish Establishment decided to focus on actual Jewish issues, they fixated exclusively on right-wing "tiki-torch" antisemitism. They constantly warned of the grave dangers posed by neo-Nazi white nationalists and far-right conspiracy theorists while dismissing and minimizing concerns about growing antisemitism on the Left. For the Jewish Establishment, the epitome of American antisemitism was Charlottesville and Pittsburgh, not CUNY and Columbia.

But regardless of how often the Establishment sounded the alarms, Jews intuitively understood that "tiki-torch" antisemitism wasn't an actual existential threat. Pittsburgh was a tragic anomaly and Charlottesville amounted to a few hundred powerless rednecks. The Jewish question was solved. Liberalism was the answer, providing the permanent guarantee of safety they had long sought.

And so a perilous conceptzia was born. And because of it American Jews were woefully unaware and egregiously unequipped to handle the antisemitism festering on the progressive Left. And because of it, as American campuses became doused in progressive antisemitic gasoline, the Jewish Establishment drowned in ignorance. And because of it, on October 7th, 2023, when a spark was finally struck, America's campuses erupted, burning bright with Jew-hatred, while the Jewish Establishment sat dumbfounded, forced to witness the incineration of their conceptzia before their very eyes.

Kahane's Warns of The Conceptzia

This American conceptzia is far from new and Kahane identified it with clarity and force throughout his writing. In his first major book, Never Again! (1971), Kahane writes that the Left's "Marxist-Lenist dedication" makes it the "deadly enemy of Jewish survival." He warns that "opposition and violent antipathy to the State of Israel is led…by the Left" and emphasized "[i]t is a principle of the radical Left that the State of Israel be eliminated. They support the most extreme of Arab terrorists and condemn Israel as an aggressor, fascist, racist expansionist state to be lumped into the same pariah class as…[apartheid] South Africa."5 Kahane foresaw the Left's attraction to radical Marxist doctrine and how that doctrine would lead the Left to radical hatred of Israel. And he predicted this over 30 years before the BDS organizations began "Israeli apartheid week" on college campuses6, long before SJP chapters began advocating for Israel's destruction7, and decades before Columbia students would chant "Go Hamas, we love you. We support your rockets too."8

Of course, the anti-Israel protesters and their supporters have continuously attempted to reassure everyone that they aren't antisemitic, just anti-Zionist.9 Yet, these same anti-Zionists always seem to engage in the most vivid displays of antisemitism imaginable, often simply recycling centuries-old canards, merely substituting "Zionist" for "Jew". Kahane anticipated this exact phenomenon as well, writing, "Attacks upon Israel and upon the Zionist ideology…inevitably lead to hatred of the Jew…Attacks upon Zionists become, in the end, attacks upon Jews."10 Additionally, in Time To Go Home (1972), Kahane described the absurdity of using anti-Zionism as a thin veil for antisemitism, "Only the naive and truly foolish will fail to recognize that, in the minds of the simple hating masses, there is no distinction between Jews and Zionist."11 Kahane not only identified where Jew-hatred would come from but also the precise tactics these antisemites would use to obscure their hate. While the Jewish Establishment was busy debating distinctions between legitimate criticism of Israel and antisemitism––setting up committees and crafting pedantic definitions––Kahane knew the true dangers of anti-Zionism.

Kahane's warnings extend even further, lambasting the embarrassing complicit ignorance of the Jewish Establishment and its mistaken faith in liberal ideology. In Why Be Jewish? (1977), after discussing the Jewish flight from Europe, Kahane writes that Jews sought refuge in American liberalism, "the Jew placed his trust and his energies in…Liberalism and Education and Equality and Democracy"12 dangerously assuming that the safety Jews had enjoyed in America would "be permanent."13 He explicitly charges "The American Jewish Establishment is liberal. It believes in Liberalism more than it believes in Judaism".14 Kahane then decries the Jewish Establishment for allocating funds to non-Jewish causes and "to institutions that often are detrimental to the Jewish cause".15 Kahane shares an identical sentiment in The Story of the JDL (1975) writing, "our Jewish Establishment..is absorbed with general social objectives rather than with Jewish problems".16

Kahane's critique of the Jewish Establishment perfectly resembles what we see today. When over 600 Jewish Organizations disgrace themselves by purchasing a full page ad in The New York Times calling Black Lives Matter "our best chance at equity and justice"17 and ignore the movement's infestation with antisemitism and anti-Zionism18, they are engaging in the very same self-destructive behavior Kahane warned about. When the Jewish Establishment enthusiastically embraces the false idol of Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion (DEI) –creating their own workshops and hiring full time DEI directors19–while blatantly ignoring the DEI regime's systematic exclusion of Jews and its role in "driv[ing] campus antisemitism"20, the Jewish Establishment shoots every American Jew in the foot. The Jewish Establishment has forfeited any right to feign surprise at the explosion of antisemitism. There is no excuse for their incompetence, no justification for their ignorance, and no defense for their failure.

Corrupting The Jewish Youth

In addition to the explosion of Jew-hatred on our college campuses, the Jewish Establishment stands complicit in the spread of yet another and even more insidious contagion: the corruption of the Jewish youth. Their obsession with liberalism infiltrated their pedagogy. They hollowed out Jewish education, eliminating virtually anything Jewish about it, leaving behind only a thin diluted shell of 'Tikkun Olam Judaism'. The result? A generation of young, progressive activist Jews alienated from their Judaism, estranged from Am Yisrael, increasingly detached from Zionism, and disturbingly willing to align with anti-Jewish causes.

The disastrous state of young Jewry is painfully obvious. A 2021 survey of the exceptionally progressive Bay Area Jewish population shows a meager 41% of Jews aged 18-34 are even "comfortable with the idea of a Jewish state", making them the only age group in which less than half responded affirmatively. In the same region’s 2017 survey, just 53% of self-identified liberals expressed comfort with Zionism’s foundational claim, compared to 68% of moderates and even more conservatives.21 National data reveals similar generational and ideological trends. According to a 2021 Pew Survey, the 18-29 demographic is yet again the sole age group where a minority feels "emotionally attached to Israel". Among Democrats the number was 52% compared to Republicans' 72%22. The trend is unmistakable: young progressive Jews are increasingly alienated from their Jewish identity and their connection to Israel. Even after the brutal awakening of October 7th, many young Jews still sit sound asleep. They chant for "Intifada" alongside their SJP comrades at anti-Israel rallies, and they become the subjects of countless anecdotes of distraught and helpless Zionist parents clashing with their anti-Israel, progressive children.

Kahane was so alarmed about the erosion of Jewish identity among the youth, he dedicated an entire book to the topic, aptly titled with the agonizing question these estranged Jews ask themselves every day: Why be Jewish? In this book, Kahane observed, with remarkable clarity, that these Jews "are for everything--but Judaism". They "struggle for political causes that are non-Jewish and, many times, anti-Jewish."23 For Kahane, young Jews are not simply politically unaware or uninterested in activism itself. In fact, inspired by the Establishment's emphasis on Tikkun Olam, they are some of the most loud and outspoken members of their generation. But, while their progressivism compels them to pursue any number of causes for social justice and civil liberty, their weak Jewish identity means they neglect Jewish causes and often even participate in anti-Jewish ones. Kahane writes that Jewish Marxists and other "Jewish radicals have totally supported anti-Jewish, Jew-hating groups, causes, and individuals."24 These Jews "[join] in with enemies of their own people and in the destruction of Judaism and Jewishness."25

But who made young Jews this way? Who is to blame for this self-destructive perversion of Judaism? Kahane does not equivocate: He ruthlessly accuses the Jewish Establishment of failing to properly educate young Jewry. While nearly all of the Establishment is implicated in Kahane's scathing remarks, he especially focuses on the Reform movement. When Reform leaders are "perplexed" as to why Jews don't care about Judaism, Kahane answers bluntly "They made him so".26

After October 7th, not even the Reform leaders could continue deluding themselves into ignoring their own complicity in the sorry condition of young Jewry. On Yom Kippur, Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch, who has held a litany of prestigious Establishment titles and is widely considered one of New York City's most influential religious leaders27, publicly repented for his own movement's role in this crisis. In an astonishingly honest and incredibly self-aware sermon, Rabbi Hirsch admits:

"As your teachers, educators, rabbis, and moral guides – know that we tried to instill in you a sense of justice, righteousness, virtue, honor, rectitude, honesty and decency for all people….What we did not intend is for your generation to turn your backs on our people. We wanted you to be Zionists. We did not intend that our emphasis on tikkun olam – social repair – would lead some Jews to join anti-Israel demonstrations. We did not intend for Jews to lead Passover Seders in so-called “liberated zones” – liberated from Zionists - that violate not only university policies, but threaten the safety of Jewish students. Some of those protests contain anti-American sentiments as well. We did not intend to encourage or excuse Jews who burn American flags, or support those who do. We did not intend that criticism of Israeli policy lead to detached indifference and a vacuous lack of compassion for the murdered, brutalized, sexually assaulted and kidnapped of our own people. We did not intend that you give not even a passing thought to the many tens of thousands of our people who have become refugees from their southern and northern homes. We did not intend to strip Jewish solidarity, empathy, responsibility and mutuality from your Jewish identity – not only towards Israeli civilians, but soldiers your age who exhibit astonishing courage and remarkable self-sacrifice, many of whom laid down their lives protecting our people in feats of enormous heroism….We did not expect the Jewish spirit to dribble away while we thought we were passing it on."28

Conclusion

The Jewish Establishment now stands at a pivotal crossroads. While the horrors of October 7th have starkly exposed its failures, this dark chapter has also created an unexpected opportunity. The inundation of Jews nationwide with antisemitism has awakened a renewed interest in Judaism, with many desperately seeking community and frequently finding refuge in Establishment spaces. But if the Jewish community is to emerge from this desperate antisemitism crisis, the Jewish Establishment must confront its conceptizia —its overtrust in a worldview that no longer guarantees safety or survival. The Establishment cannot be afraid to call out Jew-hatred on the Left. The solution is not a return to Kahane’s violent extremism but rather a reclamation of what the Jewish Establishment has abandoned: a robust, unapologetic Jewish identity rooted in history, strength, and community. Only by rediscovering its core values and prioritizing Jewish continuity over fleeting political alliances can American Jewry hope to secure a future for itself. Anything less is not mere ignorance but complicity in its own demise.