This article was originally published by the NY Post on February 23rd, 2026.
Throughout history, political movements and societies that appease antisemitism eventually decay.
Antisemitism corrodes moral judgment, distorts truth, and undermines the very democratic values its enablers claim to champion. Societies that normalize hatred of Jews never stop there. They fail because they abandon clarity for ideology and principle for power.
Today, the Democratic Party risks following this same pattern.
The Party of Roosevelt faces a consequential choice that will shape its moral credibility and political future. The question is simple: Will Democrats confront antisemitism and anti-Zionist extremism within their ranks, or continue to excuse, elevate, and normalize it?
Will Democrats choose the path of ethical emptiness leading to political irrelevance? The path that treats Israel as uniquely evil, indulges obsessive anti-Zionists while insisting it has nothing to do with antisemitism, and punishes leaders who refuse to comply?
In 2024, Kamala Harris’s decision to elevate Minnesota Governor Tim Walz over Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro exemplified this leadership failure.
Shapiro is among the most popular Democratic governors in the country. He is a pragmatic executive with broad appeal and proven ability to win as a Democrat in a swing state. His recent book provides insights into his vetting process as a potential Vice President.
He refused to yield to Harris team demands that he retract his condemnations of Hamas-supporting protestors following the October 7 massacre. He was also asked whether he had ever been an agent for the State of Israel, a blatantly absurd question for an American public servant of his stature. Despite his reputation as a skilled political leader, his responses disqualified him to Harris and her advisers.
Instead of selecting Shapiro, Harris chose Walz and lost overwhelmingly.
Since the 2024 election, Walz has struggled to maintain credibility within his own governorship and will not seek reelection. Harris elevated a weaker, less qualified leader to avoid offending the party’s anti-Israel activist wing. This was both bad politics and moral ineptitude.
Harris’ VP choice serves as a cautionary tale: when parties sideline their strongest leaders to appease ideological extremists, they lose.
The Democrats with Trembling Knees
Unfortunately, the Democratic party refuses to learn from past mistakes.
Scott Wiener, a prominent progressive and co-Chair of the California Legislative Jewish Caucus vying to succeed Nancy Pelosi, recently capitulated to far-left pressure by publicly labeling Israel’s self-defense actions in Gaza a “genocide.” This was not conviction; it was political survival.
Menachem Begin once declared, “I am not a Jew with trembling knees.” He understood that Jewish dignity and moral clarity require courage to stand firm even when inconvenient.
Wiener’s decision represents the opposite instinct, the posture of a Jew with trembling knees, someone willing to distort reality and abandon truth to appease an ideological mob. That a Democratic candidate feels compelled to adopt extremist language to survive a primary should alarm anyone concerned about the party’s future.
In Los Angeles, mayoral candidate Nithya Raman operates within the ideological ecosystem shaped by the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). The DSA platform explicitly rejects Zionism, embraces the BDS movement, and frames Israel as a colonial enterprise. Increasingly, the DSA backs candidates in major cities who align with these positions and seek to advance them through public office, signaling a broader effort to translate ideological commitments into political power.
In New York, Zohran Mamdani, also part of the DSA, has embraced an agenda that systematically strips antisemitism protections from Jews and weakens pro-Israel measures. Under the guise of “anti-Zionism,” his movement seeks to remove Jews from protected minority lists, unless they renounce their connection to Israel.
These views are increasingly normalized under the banner of justice and human rights, even when they depart from core principles those terms uphold. The rhetoric does not advance genuine human rights but promotes rigid ideological agendas while presenting them in moral language that discourages scrutiny or debate.
This dynamic misleads the public and elevates narratives driven more by ideology than commitment to truth, pluralism, or democratic values.
An Alternative Path
The alternative path is one of credibility and seriousness, focused on issues that matter to most Americans. It is the path of leaders who refuse to surrender truth to extremists, who understand that defending liberal values means rejecting antisemitism in all forms, including when rebranded as “anti-Zionism.”
For a healthy American democracy, the United States needs two competent political parties capable of disagreeing vigorously while sharing commitment to fundamental ideals.
America’s strength has always rested on its founding liberal values and democratic alliances. A Democratic Party that cannot recognize this risks losing elections and its claim to moral leadership.
The choice before Democrats is clear: Will they follow leaders who distort Israel, normalize antisemitism, and lose races? Or will they elevate those who defend truth, reject extremism, and focus on real challenges facing Americans?
History suggests that parties, and nations, that choose wrongly fail to survive.