Can Steve Hilton Defy California's Polls and End Two Decades of Democratic Governors?

At Salem Media's TownHall in Southern California, Steve Hilton explains his six-million-vote strategy, challenges conventional polling and urges Republicans to embrace ballot harvesting.

Steve Hilton addressed Salem Media's TownHall in Pasadena, CA

PASADENA, Calif. - Republican gubernatorialcandidate Steve Hilton believes he can overcome California's Democratic advantage by mobilizing millions of voters who ordinarily skip midterm elections, attracting disaffected Democrats and embracing ballot-collection tactics more commonly associated with his opponents.

Speaking September 26 at Salem Media's AM 870 The Answer TownHall, Hilton told an audience at Pasadena's Ambassador Auditorium that he estimates approximately six million votes could be enough to win the governorship. Donald Trump received roughly 6.1 million votes in California in 2024, a number Hilton believes offers a path to victory if Republicans can substantially increase their midterm participation.

In an onstage interview with KRLA's Jennifer Horn, Hilton also challenged polls showing Democrat Xavier Becerra ahead by more than 20 points, arguing that surveys anticipating greater Republican turnout reveal a considerably narrower contest.

Jennifer Horn interviews candidate, Steve Hilton, before TownHall audience in SoCal

Are California's Polls Misreading the Electorate?

Steve Hilton acknowledged that established surveys show him trailing Becerra by approximately 20 to 22 percentage points. But he questioned whether the polling organizations' assumptions about likely voters adequately reflect the current political climate.

"The result that you get depends on the assumptions that you put in," Hilton told Horn.

He specifically challenged the turnout models used by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) and UC Berkeley's Institute of Governmental Studies.

According to Hilton, other surveys using assumptions of greater Republican participation have shown Becerra's advantage shrinking to approximately eight to ten points.

"Now that's still behind. I want to be honest. We know it's an uphill battle," Hilton acknowledged. "But that is a gap that we can bridge."

His contention is that dissatisfaction with California's cost of living, housing, taxes and governance could produce an electorate that traditional models underestimate.

The polling evidence nevertheless presents a substantial challenge. A September 15 PPIC survey showed Becerra leading 60% to 38%, while a Berkeley IGS/Los Angeles Times poll published September 24 found Becerra ahead 58% to 33%.

Those surveys do not establish the final election outcome, but neither does Hilton's criticism of turnout assumptions establish that the polls are inaccurate.

Steve Hilton's Six-Million-Vote Calculation

Mr. Hilton then offered the audience a numerical argument.

Based on his campaign's estimates of participation in recent California elections, he believes approximately six million votes could be sufficient to win the governorship.

He pointed to Donald Trump's performance in California during the 2024 presidential election.

"In 2024 in California, without campaigning here or spending money here, President Trump got 6.1 million votes," Hilton said.

The California Secretary of State confirms Trump received 6,081,697 votes.

Hilton's argument is that Republicans do not necessarily need to create millions of new supporters. Instead, they need to persuade existing Republican voters, particularly those who vote in presidential elections but skip midterms, to participate.

He urged attendees to identify friends, relatives and coworkers who might otherwise sit out the election.

"If every single person here brings one other person who's a Republican already who wasn't going to vote," he argued, the potential impact could be considerable.

But Trump's 2024 vote total is not itself a forecast of Republican turnout in November. California's electorate and participation patterns can differ considerably between presidential and gubernatorial elections.

A Republican Case for Ballot Harvesting

Perhaps Hilton's most unconventional recommendation came when he described an encounter with a supporter at a campaign event in Lancaster, Calif.

A woman arrived carrying numerous completed ballots, he recalled, explaining that she had organized a pizza party where friends gathered with their mail ballots and arranged for her to deliver them.

Following their interview Jennifer Horn joins audience applauding Steve Hilton

Hilton presented the gathering as an example of how ordinary supporters could increase participation without waiting for a professional political organization.

"That is called ballot harvesting," he told the audience.

Then came his challenge to fellow Republicans:

"Why should we let just the unions and the activists and the Democrat nonprofits do ballot harvesting? Let's do it as well."

The anecdote marks an interesting strategic departure from Republican criticism of organized ballot collection.

California law permits a voter to authorize another person to return a completed mail ballot, subject to restrictions, including a prohibition on payment based on the number of ballots collected.

Hilton's account did not establish how many additional votes resulted from the Lancaster gathering. But it illustrated his willingness to encourage Republicans to use an election practice he believes their opponents have exploited more effectively.

California's Cost of Living Becomes a Moral Argument

Earlier in his presentation, Hilton had framed the gubernatorial contest as something more consequential than a dispute over taxes or spending.

He promised to eliminate state income taxes on the first $150,000 of income, pursue $3-per-gallon gasoline, reduce utility costs and cancel California's high-speed rail project on his first day as governor.

In his subsequent interview with KRLA's Jennifer Horn, Hilton explained why immediate tax relief is his priority:

Yet the most striking portion of his speech involved two Los Angeles businesses.

In South Los Angeles, Hilton said he met the immigrant owners of a neighborhood shoe store who were struggling to compete against nearby sidewalk vendors selling similar merchandise without the overhead expenses of a conventional storefront.

Fentanyl abusers around the corner from MacArthur Park near Langer's Deli

He blamed state policies governing sidewalk vending for creating what he described as unfair competition against business owners who comply with taxes, rents and permitting requirements.

Hilton then turned to Langer's Delicatessen, the longtime Los Angeles institution near MacArthur Park.

He recounted visiting the neighborhood and observing widespread public drug use despite efforts to clean up the area. He also alleged that taxpayer-supported nonprofit organizations were perpetuating the problem by distributing drug-related supplies.

Those allegations about nonprofit activities were not independently substantiated in Hilton's presentation.

For Hilton, the two encounters represented a larger failure of California governance.

"What it tells you is that after 16 years of these Democrats being in charge, the people in this state who do the right thing are punished and the people who do the wrong thing are rewarded."

That, he argued, is the moral dimension of the election.

Can Dissatisfied Democrats Help Elect a Republican?

Hilton's proposed path to victory extends beyond mobilizing Republicans.

He told Ms. Horn that some lifelong Democrats have approached him at campaign appearances to say they are considering voting Republican because they want California to change.

He described those conversations as increasingly frequent, although he acknowledged that such personal encounters are anecdotal.

Many of those voters, Hilton suggested, may never formally become Republicans. His challenge is to win their support without requiring a change in party identification.

His campaign therefore appears to be pursuing two distinct objectives: motivating Republicans who traditionally skip midterm elections, while attracting Democrats and independents dissatisfied with the state's direction.

Whether that coalition materializes remains uncertain.

But Hilton's remarks in Pasadena revealed how he intends to contest a race that conventional polling continues to favor heavily toward Becerra.

His challenge is not merely to convince Californians that their state needs different leadership. It is to persuade enough of them that voting for a Republican can actually deliver it.

How the Blame for October 7th Got Inverted - Even Before Israel Entered Gaza

Within hours of the Hamas massacre, an information war was already underway. Within days, organized demonstrations across America were describing the attack as “resistance.” And before Israeli ground forces entered Gaza, Israel was already being accused of genocide.

On the morning of October 7, 2023, Hamas terrorists crossed into southern Israel, murdering about 1,200 people and taking more than 240 hostages.

But another operation began almost simultaneously: the battle over what the world would believe had happened and who would ultimately be seen as the aggressor.

Three years later, the speed with which that narrative changed deserves another look.

There is considerable evidence of a well-developed international communications and activist infrastructure capable of moving almost immediately.

Within hours, Hamas was distributing carefully prepared messages and videos. Within a day, established American activist organizations were staging demonstrations across the country. Within a week, the attack was being widely reframed as Palestinian “resistance.” Within eleven days, lawyers were publicly accusing Israel of genocide — before Israel had begun its major ground invasion of Gaza.

And television cameras were there to broadcast the resulting protests.

The information campaign began with the attack

Researchers at the Atlantic Council reconstructed the first hours of Hamas's communications operation.

At 7:14 a.m. Israeli time on October 7, Hamas's al-Qassam Brigades announced the attack on Telegram. At 7:30, Hamas media posted video. At 8:47, al-Qassam released a roughly ten-minute propaganda video seeking to justify the attack.

Graphic photographs and videos followed.

During the first 72 hours, Hamas and Hamas-adjacent organizations produced nearly 6,000 Telegram posts, according to the Atlantic Council. The al-Qassam Telegram channel's audience grew rapidly from hundreds of thousands of subscribers to more than 600,000.

Atlantic Council: “Distortion by Design”

In other words, Hamas did not first attack Israel and later discover public relations.

The information war was underway while Israelis were still being killed, kidnapped and hunted.

By the next day, demonstrations were nationwide

The speed of the American street response was striking.

ANSWER Coalition's own archived national protest listing records demonstrations on Sunday, October 8 — one day after the massacre — in New York, Washington, San Francisco, Anaheim, Chicago, Philadelphia, Dallas, Atlanta, Tampa, Austin and numerous other cities.

The Times Square demonstration was sponsored by an existing coalition that included the Palestinian Youth Movement, Party for Socialism and Liberation, The People's Forum, American Muslims for Palestine, ANSWER Coalition and Al-Awda, among others.

In Anaheim, sponsors included ANSWER, PSL, the Palestinian Youth Movement and Al-Awda.

Chicago's demonstration included Students for Justice in Palestine and American Muslims for Palestine.

ANSWER Coalition archived protest listings

Pro-Palestinian demonstration at UC Berkeley, Oct. 25, 2023. Photo: Kefr4000 / Wikimedia Commons / CC0.

This was not a movement that had to be invented on October 8.

The organizations, mailing lists, organizers, campus chapters, social-media accounts and protest experience already existed. October 7 activated them.

That demonstrates how quickly an established political infrastructure could turn a terrorist attack thousands of miles away into coordinated American street action.

A common message reached the campuses

On October 8, National Students for Justice in Palestine distributed what it called a “Day of Resistance Toolkit.”

The purpose was not simply to organize vigils for Palestinian civilians. It supplied campus activists with a common political interpretation of the unfolding events and called for nationwide actions.

National SJP “Day of Resistance” toolkit

That distinction matters.

Israel had barely begun responding militarily, yet the argument over October 7 was already shifting from what Hamas had done toward why Palestinians were justified in resisting Israel.

A Palestinian flag is held in front of an Israeli flag during a UC Berkeley protest, Oct. 25, 2023. Photo: Kefr4000 / Wikimedia Commons / CC0.

Videos of the October 8 demonstrations are especially revealing because they preserve the messaging in real time. Protesters could already be seen carrying signs and using language that portrayed the events through the framework of “resistance” and occupation.

The major Israeli ground operation was still almost three weeks away.

“Genocide” came before the ground invasion

The chronology becomes still more important when examining the charge that would eventually dominate much of the international debate: genocide.

Israel certainly was already bombing Gaza heavily following October 7. Gaza civilians were being killed, buildings destroyed, and Israel had announced a siege and ordered civilians in northern Gaza to evacuate.

But Israel's large-scale ground operation did not begin until October 27.

By then, however, the genocide allegation was already firmly in circulation.

On October 18, the U.S.-based Center for Constitutional Rights released an “Emergency Legal Briefing Paper” asserting that there was a credible case that Israel was attempting or committing genocide.

The paper itself referred to the “upcoming Israeli ground invasion.”

Center for Constitutional Rights emergency briefing

Thus, whatever one believes about whether Israel's subsequent conduct ultimately met the legal definition of genocide, the accusation was not a conclusion reached after observing months or years of the Gaza war.

It became part of the international argument within eleven days of the Hamas attack, and before the principal ground invasion had even started.

Then came the amplification

The movement cannot accurately be reduced to a single foreign command center.

Some protesters were acting from sincerely held beliefs about Palestinian rights and civilian suffering.

But foreign involvement was not imaginary.

In July 2024, U.S. Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines publicly disclosed that actors connected to the Iranian government were posing online as activists, encouraging demonstrations and even providing financial support to some protesters.

Haines cautioned that Americans receiving such encouragement or assistance might not even know they were interacting with representatives of a foreign government.

Office of the Director of National Intelligence statement

An influence campaign does not require thousands of protesters to knowingly take orders from abroad.

It requires money, organizers, communications networks, media production and people capable of transmitting a message.

Who paid for the infrastructure?

Iran provides the clearest example because the confirmation came directly from U.S. intelligence.

But another trail leads to Neville Roy Singham, an American technology millionaire who moved to Shanghai and has poured millions of dollars into organizations active in American protest politics.

A George Washington University Program on Extremism study examined what it described as Chinese Communist Party influence in U.S. pro-Palestinian activism. Researchers traced a network associated with Singham that financially supported organizations including The People's Forum, while identifying organizational relationships involving the ANSWER Coalition, International People's Assembly and other activist groups.

George Washington University: CCP influence in U.S. pro-Palestinian activism

The People's Forum has acknowledged Singham as a major benefactor. Congressional investigators have also examined the network and its role in protest activity.

The significance is not that Beijing has been shown to have written checks directly to individual campus protesters. That has not been established.

Rather, Singham has been documented participating in Chinese Communist Party-related events and financing organizations and media operations that researchers say frequently promote positions aligned with Beijing.

Young Democratic Socialists of America flag at a pro-Palestinian demonstration at
UC Berkeley, Oct. 25, 2023. Photo: Kefr4000 / Wikimedia Commons / CC0.

That network was not limited to demonstrations.

It included media.

BreakThrough News, which has personnel and organizational relationships within the Singham network, has produced online programming promoting both pro-China and anti-Israel narratives.

Signs cost money. Staff cost money. Offices cost money. Websites, video production, livestreams, transportation and full-time organizers cost money.

A protest movement can contain thousands of sincere volunteers while still depending upon a professionally financed organizational structure.

Qatar's influence followed a different route

Qatar presents a different and more complicated case.

There is no comparable public evidence showing that the Qatari government directly financed particular American demonstrators.

But Qatar has supplied enormous amounts of money to American institutions.

Federal disclosure records maintained by the U.S. Department of Education have repeatedly placed Qatar among the largest foreign sources of gifts and contracts reported by American universities. In 2025 alone, institutions reported more than $1.1 billion in Qatari-origin gifts and contracts.

U.S. Department of Education foreign-funding disclosures

Those payments cannot simply be equated with financing anti-Israel demonstrations. Much of the money involves university programs, contracts and overseas campuses.

But the scale matters when examining the wider environment in which Middle East policy is taught, researched and debated.

Qatar also possesses something more directly relevant to the information war: a global television and digital network.

Al Jazeera acknowledges that it is funded in part by the Qatari government.

Its programming reaches a global audience, with a substantial parallel presence on YouTube and social media.

Whatever judgment one reaches about Al Jazeera's editorial independence, Qatar possesses something Iran and Hamas could never build on a comparable scale by themselves: a Qatari-funded international media platform capable of placing Gaza before a worldwide audience continuously.

The result was not one money trail, but several

The evidence therefore does not point neatly to a single financier controlling an international movement.

It points to overlapping channels.

Iran: U.S. intelligence confirmed that Iranian government actors encouraged protests, impersonated activists online and provided financial support to some demonstrators.

China-linked networks: Singham-funded organizations supplied money and infrastructure to groups involved in major post-October 7 demonstrations and related alternative media. Researchers have documented Singham's relationships within the Chinese Communist Party's political and communications environment, although that is not the same as proof that the CCP directly financed individual demonstrations.

Qatar: billions of dollars flowed into American higher education while Qatari government funding supported one of the world's largest international news networks. A direct Qatar-to-campus-protester payment trail has not been established.

American nonprofit and activist networks: organizations already possessed staff, donors, fiscal sponsors, mailing lists, campus chapters and experienced protest organizers long before October 7.

Taken together, they help explain how large demonstrations, coordinated slogans, sophisticated graphics, media content and organized campus actions could appear rapidly and continue for years.

And television provided the amplifier

How did activists carrying signs and megaphones become such an important part of the news itself?

Part of the answer may be much less conspiratorial — and more troubling — than a secret agreement between activists and journalists.

Television needs pictures.

A demonstration provides them instantly: crowds, signs, chanting, confrontation, emotional witnesses and spokespeople eager to talk.

A television reporter sent to a campus protest can put a microphone in front of an organizer within minutes. Investigating where the organizer's claims originated, tracing financial relationships, locating Arabic-language propaganda or finding specialists capable of evaluating those claims takes considerably longer.

Social media made the imbalance worse.

The Atlantic Council found that Hamas and associated groups were pumping thousands of messages into an online ecosystem in which unverified video, emotionally powerful images and claims could reach enormous audiences before professional journalists had determined what actually happened.

Israel made the verification problem harder in another way.

Foreign journalists have generally not been allowed independent access to Gaza since October 7. The Committee to Protect Journalists says international reporters instead have largely been limited to occasional, tightly controlled military escorts.

Committee to Protect Journalists on independent Gaza access

That left major international news organizations unusually dependent on Palestinian reporters, local sources, social-media video, aid organizations, satellite imagery and statements from the combatants themselves.

The hospital explosion showed what could go wrong

Perhaps no incident demonstrated the danger better than the October 17 explosion at al-Ahli Arab Hospital in Gaza.

Initial reports attributed the explosion to an Israeli strike and cited a Palestinian claim that approximately 500 people had died.

The New York Times prominently reported:

“Israeli Airstrike Hits Gaza Hospital, Killing 500, Palestinian Health Ministry Says.”

The evidence was not yet established.

As competing evidence emerged, the headline changed. The Times later published an editor's note acknowledging that its early coverage had relied too heavily on Hamas's claims and had failed to make sufficiently clear that they could not immediately be verified.

Poynter: New York Times explains its Gaza hospital coverage

That correction came later.

The original accusation had already traveled around the world.

And that is the central problem of an information war.

The first version reaches millions. The correction reaches some fraction of them.

Three years later, the speed still matters

None of this proves that every criticism of Israel was manufactured.

It does not prove that Palestinian civilian suffering was invented. It does not settle the legal arguments over Israel's conduct in Gaza.

Those are separate questions.

What the record does show is remarkable enough.

Hamas launched a sophisticated communications campaign virtually alongside its physical attack.

Established activist organizations in the United States were able to coordinate demonstrations across the country within approximately one day.

A national campus network circulated a common mobilization package within that same period.

The language of “resistance” appeared before Israel's ground invasion.

The accusation of genocide followed before that invasion began.

Then came money, infrastructure and amplification from several directions: documented Iranian influence operations, China-linked financing of major activist organizations, established American nonprofit networks, and a much broader foreign-funded information environment that included Qatar's enormous investments in universities and global media.

And a modern news system driven by immediacy, dramatic pictures and social-media velocity sometimes repeated claims before reporters could verify them.

The more useful question is how an existing network of organizations, money, activists, foreign influence operations, media platforms and social-media channels became capable of changing the subject so rapidly — and then keeping that changed narrative alive.

On October 7, the unmistakable news story was a Hamas assault in which civilians were massacred and abducted.

Within days, much of the argument in streets and on campuses had become an indictment of Israel.

The story did not reverse itself.

There was an infrastructure capable of reversing it.

---

Sources include the Atlantic Council's “Distortion by Design”; ANSWER Coalition's archived October 2023 protest listings; National Students for Justice in Palestine's October 8 “Day of Resistance” materials; the Center for Constitutional Rights' October 18 emergency legal briefing; the Office of the Director of National Intelligence; George Washington University's Program on Extremism; U.S. Department of Education foreign-funding disclosures; congressional investigations of the Singham network and foreign funding; Al Jazeera's funding disclosures; the Committee to Protect Journalists; and contemporaneous reporting on the New York Times' correction of its al-Ahli Hospital coverage.

Mamdani Pledges to Fight Antisemitism — But What About People and Organizations Who Support Israel?

One Israel Fund executive, Scott Feltman describes being singled out by New York's mayor, security fears affecting his organization, and the controversy over charitable support for Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria. Meanwhile, similar questions about Israel and antisemitism surfaced at a Los Angeles mayoral forum.

September 30, 2026 

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani (Photo: Moshe Davis, Fox News)

NEW YORK / LOS ANGELES — New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani unveiled a new strategy Tuesday, September 29, to combat antisemitism, pledging additional funding for security at synagogues and other houses of worship, expanded Holocaust education, and greater support for victims of hate crimes.

Yet his announcement arrives against the backdrop of a longstanding dispute over political opposition to Israel and the treatment of Jewish individuals and organizations whose charitable activities support Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria.

The issue is particularly relevant to One Israel Fund, a U.S.-based nonprofit that supports civilian security, emergency medical services, educational programs, and community development in those Israeli communities, located in territory widely known as the West Bank.

In an exclusive video interview with DemoCast, Scott Feltman, executive vice president of One Israel Fund, described his organization's work and accused Mamdani of repeatedly singling it out.

The interview was recorded before Mamdani's September 29 announcement, making Feltman's earlier account relevant to the questions now surrounding the mayor's policy.

Mamdani's Antisemitism Initiative: Protections and Unanswered Questions

According to the Mayor's Office announcement, the new initiative provides $6.4 million in community grants for hate-crime prevention and survivor support, along with $1 million for physical security at synagogues and other houses of worship.

It also supports increased Holocaust education, Jewish cultural programs, and expanded awareness of civil rights protections.

However, the strategy does not adopt a single definition of antisemitism, and critics have questioned its failure to specifically address how hostility toward Zionism or Israel can, in certain circumstances, become discrimination against Jewish people.

Supporters of the strategy argue that it addresses threats facing Jewish New Yorkers without treating criticism of Israeli government policies as inherently antisemitic. Critics maintain that the distinction remains insufficiently defined when Jewish institutions or individuals are targeted because of their associations with Israel.

The unresolved question is how city policy will protect individuals and organizations whose support for Israel becomes the object of intimidation, threats, or discriminatory treatment.

One Israel Fund: A Charity in Mamdani's Political Crosshairs

Mayor Zohran Mamdani                         Scott M. Feltman, Exec. V.P - One Israel Fund
                                                                  (Photo: Getty Fox News Digital)

Before his election as mayor, Mamdani sponsored legislation in the New York State Assembly known as the "Not On Our Dime" bill, intended to restrict certain activities by tax-exempt organizations supporting Israeli settlements.

The 2023 legislation, Assembly Bill A6943, proposed civil penalties and a private right of action involving prohibited settlement-related activities. It did not become law.

Supporters portrayed the measure as a means of preventing nonprofit funds from facilitating violations of Palestinian rights. Opponents questioned its implications for charities supporting Israeli communities, including organizations that provide medical assistance and civilian security equipment.

One Israel Fund was specifically named in advocacy surrounding the proposed legislation.

Feltman says his organization provides assistance ranging from ambulances and medical facilities to surveillance cameras, thermal drones, defensive equipment for civilian first responders, and community projects.

He emphasizes that One Israel Fund does not provide weapons and characterizes its security assistance as defensive and humanitarian in purpose.

Asked about opposition to the organization, Feltman turned directly to Mamdani:

"He has attacked us by name numerous times."

Feltman described Mamdani's earlier legislative effort as an attempt to interfere with charitable support for the Israeli communities his organization serves.

His remarks raise a broader question: under what circumstances can restrictions directed at settlement-related activity also affect organizations whose work includes humanitarian and medical assistance?

WATCH: Scott Feltman discusses Mamdani's criticism of One Israel Fund, the proposed restrictions on charitable donations, and his staff's subsequent security concerns.

Exclusive DemoCast interview: Part 1, 19:49–22:06. Watch on YouTube

From Political Controversy to Personal Security Fears

Feltman also described growing concerns about the safety of his employees.

In the interview, he recalled how staff members became visibly shaken following the May 2025 murders of two Israeli Embassy employees outside an event at the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington, D.C.

He said employees feared that a similarly motivated attacker might target One Israel Fund.

His explanation of the organization's resulting move was interrupted by a camera recording break, but continued immediately in the next video.

"Now I have to literally have my organization, a prominent organization for 32 years, hiding behind a PO box."

Feltman told this reporter off camera that One Israel Fund had also experienced harassment by telephone and at its physical offices. He further referred to criticism from an advocacy organization that he said had portrayed OIF in hostile terms.

The identity of that organization, the exact nature of any designation, and the particular harassment incidents have not yet been independently verified for this report.

Feltman had already expressed fears for employee safety in a July 23, 2025 Fox News Digital interview.

He also publicly criticized Mamdani in a July 8, 2025 article in American Thinker, objecting to the politician's remarks about OIF and defending the organization's civilian security projects.

The documented statements show that Feltman's concerns preceded his DemoCast interview. They do not establish that Mamdani personally caused threats or harassment directed at the organization.

WATCH: Feltman describes the relocation of One Israel Fund's offices and the security climate affecting his organization.

Exclusive DemoCast interview: Part 2, 0:00–0:58. Watch on YouTube

Is It Opposition to Israel, or Antisemitism?

During the interview, Feltman explained why he had previously avoided giving extensive public attention to the organization's political controversies.

He cited One Israel Fund's nonprofit status and its desire to keep attention focused on its humanitarian work.

But he said the broader political climate made continued silence increasingly difficult.

"It's Jew hatred. It's classic anti-semitism. And it has to stop."

This reporter then asked Feltman to explain why he believed Mamdani's conduct demonstrated hostility toward Jews, rather than opposition to Israel alone.

Feltman pointed to what he regarded as a wider pattern of rhetoric and actions, including Mamdani's approach to Israeli institutions and his relations with ethnic communities in New York.

His allegations concern the motives and implications of the mayor's political conduct. Mamdani, for his part, maintains that opposition to Israeli government policy and settlement-related activities should not be equated with antisemitism.

The distinction matters. Criticism of Israel is protected political expression and does not automatically constitute anti-Jewish prejudice. Conversely, targeting Jewish individuals or institutions through threats, exclusion, or discriminatory conduct because of their Jewish identity or perceived associations with Israel can raise serious antisemitism and civil rights concerns.

WATCH: Feltman explains his allegations of antisemitism and responds to questions distinguishing criticism of Israel from hostility toward Jews.

Exclusive DemoCast interview: Part 2, 1:04–2:46. Watch on YouTube

From New York to Los Angeles: Nithya Raman Faces Questions About Israel and Jewish Security

PHOTO 3 PLACEHOLDER

Mayor Karen Bass, left, and council member Nithya Raman, both participated in the environmental forum organized by the Los Angeles League of Conservation Voters at LA Trade Tech Culinary Arts Building in Los Angeles. (Etienne Laurent/For The Times)

The debate is not confined to New York.

On the same day Mamdani unveiled his antisemitism initiative, questions surrounding Israel, political activism, and Jewish communal security emerged at a Los Angeles mayoral candidate forum at the Skirball Cultural Center.

On Tuesday evening, September 29, Los Angeles City Councilwoman Nithya Raman, a Democratic Socialist challenging incumbent Mayor Karen Bass, faced pointed questions about her views on Israel, the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, and her appearance on the livestream of political commentator Hasan Piker.

As reported by The Forward, Raman reiterated her characterization of Israel's military campaign in Gaza as genocide, drawing audible disapproval from members of the audience.

Bass, appearing separately at the forum, rejected that characterization.

Raman also defended BDS as a legitimate form of peaceful protest, while stating that it was not part of her mayoral campaign platform. That response drew another strong negative reaction from the audience.

Bass said she did not support BDS.

Democratic Socialists, BDS and Disagreements Within the Left

The Democratic Socialists of America supports BDS and has generally taken strongly critical positions concerning Israeli policies toward Palestinians.

Yet Raman's relationship with DSA demonstrates that the organization's members and affiliated elected officials do not necessarily agree on every issue.

After Hamas's October 7, 2023 attacks on Israel, Raman criticized the DSA response. She was subsequently censured by DSA's Los Angeles chapter following disagreements that included her pursuit of an endorsement from Democrats for Israel–Los Angeles.

At the Skirball forum, Raman defended her appearance on Hasan Piker's livestream, explaining that candidates should be willing to engage audiences with differing political views.

Piker has faced allegations of antisemitism concerning his public commentary, allegations he has rejected.

Raman also acknowledged that antisemitism can originate on the political left. She promised to protect Jewish Angelenos regardless of their political positions or views on foreign affairs.

Her statements create an important distinction between the New York and Los Angeles situations: Raman has not proposed legislation equivalent to Mamdani's restrictions on settlement-related charitable activities.

Nevertheless, the two controversies raise related questions about the treatment of Jewish institutions and supporters of Israel in cities where progressive political movements have substantial influence.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani and L.A. mayoral candidate Nithya Raman.

What Would Similar Policies Mean for California?

Feltman's account provides an example of the concerns that can arise when charitable support for Israeli communities becomes the subject of political and legislative campaigns.

The New York bill specifically targeted certain nonprofit activities associated with Israeli settlements. Whether comparable restrictions could be proposed in California would depend upon the policies adopted by lawmakers, the authority of state or municipal government, and applicable constitutional protections.

No equivalent proposal by Raman against One Israel Fund has been established.

Still, the Los Angeles forum exposed significant disagreements about Israel, BDS, and the extent to which municipal leaders should address hostility toward Jewish residents whose support for Israel is publicly known.

Rabbi Noah Farkas, chief executive of Jewish Federation Los Angeles, observed during the forum that Jewish Angelenos may be held personally responsible for actions of the Israeli government regardless of their individual beliefs.

That concern provides a point of comparison with Feltman's account of the political controversy surrounding his organization.

For Jewish and non-Jewish supporters of Israel alike, the relevant questions concern whether lawful charitable donations, religious activities, political associations, and public advocacy can proceed without threats or unlawful discrimination.

Promises, Policies and Protections

Mamdani's new antisemitism strategy includes concrete commitments to Jewish institutional security, community support, education, and hate-crime prevention.

At the same time, his earlier sponsorship of the Not On Our Dime legislation demonstrates his willingness to pursue restrictions concerning certain charitable activities linked to Israeli settlements.

Those positions raise questions about how the administration will distinguish between legitimate policy disagreement, protected political protest, and harassment or discrimination directed at people or institutions because of their support for Israel.

In Los Angeles, Raman's positions on Gaza, BDS, and political engagement with controversial commentators have generated disagreement within the Jewish community, while she has also pledged to protect Jewish residents and opposed some positions taken by DSA.

The two political records are not identical, and the positions of individual candidates cannot automatically be attributed to every member of their party or political movement.

For One Israel Fund's Scott Feltman, however, the debate has already taken a personal dimension. He describes employees worried about their safety, an organization that relocated its offices, and a charitable mission he believes has been unfairly portrayed by political critics.

Whether government protections against antisemitism will apply consistently to Jewish individuals and institutions regardless of their positions on Israel remains an important question for both New York and Los Angeles.

Sources and Related Reporting

Official records

• New York City Mayor's Office: September 29, 2026 Strategy to Combat Antisemitism
• New York State Assembly Bill A6943: Not On Our Dime
• One Israel Fund: Mission and Leadership

Scott Feltman and One Israel Fund

• Scott Feltman, American Thinker, July 8, 2025
• Fox News Digital: Scott Feltman Interview, July 23, 2025

Antisemitism strategy and Los Angeles forum

• New York Jewish Week: Mamdani's Antisemitism Strategy
• The Forward: Nithya Raman at Los Angeles Jewish Community Forum, September 30, 2026
• Associated Press: Raman and Bass at the Los Angeles Mayoral Forum

Original video interviews conducted by DemoCast. Interviewee statements are attributed to the individuals making them. Reporting and commentary concerning public officials and organizations are distinguished from independently verified events.

UCLA Law Symposium's September 11th insult to the father of both UCLA's A.I. - and Daniel Pearl

 

Father of jihadist-slain Wall St. Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, Prof. Judea Pearl a globally renowned pioneer in artificial-intelligence, has invested 56-years on the U.C.L.A. campus

UCLA School of Law marked the 25th anniversary of September 11 with a two-day symposium, “25 Years After 9/11: Reimagining Freedom, Justice, and Security,” on September 10–11. The sponsors were five law-school centers: Critical Race Studies, International & Comparative Law, the Institute for Technology, Law & Policy, the Promise Institute for Human Rights, and the Miñana Family Center for Immigration Law & Policy. 

Melanie T. Partow, a defense attorney for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, spoke Friday morning on the panel “Torture, Rendition, and Detention: The Erosion of the Rights Regime post 9/11.” She did not respond to the Los Angeles Times.¹

Partow is one of the defense lawyers for Mohammed, a terrorist who boasted about beheading Daniel Pearl.

Mohammed is the accused architect of the September 11 attacks. In a 2007 Pentagon transcript he said he beheaded Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl in Pakistan in 2002.² Daniel Pearl’s father, Professor Judea Pearl, has been at UCLA for 56 years.³ He founded and hosts the Daniel Pearl Memorial Lecture on that campus. Next month that lecture is scheduled to feature Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich.¹

Pearl told the New York Post he was ashamed of his university. He accused the law school of “weaponizing the painful days of 9/11 and 10/7 to promote hateful ideologies.”⁴ He later told the Los Angeles Times: “To my esteemed colleagues at these five centers: Please find different dates to engage us with your political sophistry.”¹ He also said a September 11 event “should be used to commemorate the victims of that attack: Innocent Americans.”⁵

The program gave the dead fifteen minutes on Friday morning. Lunch got an hour.⁶ The panels addressed torture, detention, surveillance, immigration enforcement, “White Christian nationalism,” and “the ongoing genocide in Gaza.” Other speakers included Hussam Ayloush of CAIR-California, who after October 7 said “Israel should be attacked”; Yale’s Aslı Ü. Bâli, who called counterterrorism a “racist gravy train”; and Amna Akbar, who called the alleged murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson a “spectacular act of protest.”⁷ No panel listed 9/11 families, first responders, or prosecutors.

A UCLA Law spokesman had said the school has a “longstanding commitment to academic freedom,” that program events do not speak for the school, and that it “does not withdraw invitations because a speaker or viewpoint is sensitive or controversial.”⁸

On Friday, September 11, Chancellor Julio Frenk issued a campus statement. He said Judea Pearl is “a deeply valued member of the UCLA community,” called Daniel Pearl’s murder “an act of unspeakable evil,” and said: “Nothing about this event at the UCLA School of Law, which we do not endorse, changes or qualifies those commitments.” He added: “Academic freedom does not require us to be neutral about antisemitism or terrorism.” He said he understood why Pearl and others were “deeply hurt.”⁹ He did not cancel the symposium. He did not remove Partow. She spoke that morning.¹

Organizers answered Frenk. Law professors Ahilan Arulanantham and LaToya Baldwin Clark said they were “enormously proud of the symposium we organized, and UCLA should be too.” They said critics who did not attend missed memorials, including Arulanantham’s account of being in Manhattan on September 11 and Jasleen Kohli’s account that her mother nearly boarded a hijacked flight. 

Law professor Aaron Littman said he was “profoundly disappointed in our chancellor, as a member of the UCLA law faculty and a Jew,” and that treating the invitation of a defense lawyer as an endorsement of the client’s deeds “is a threat to democracy.” 

Law professor Seana Shiffrin called the program “academically serious” and said a torture-and-rendition panel is stronger with counsel who has handled those cases. She did not attend Partow’s panel.¹

A defense lawyer may speak on campus any week of the year. Guantánamo counsel is a lawful job. September 11 is not an ordinary programming date. UCLA put Mohammed’s lawyer on that date, at Pearl’s university, while Pearl’s own lecture in his son’s name remains on the calendar. Frenk said the university does not endorse the event. The five centers held it anyway. Pearl asked them to pick different dates. They did not.

---

Notes

¹ Jaweed Kaleem, “UCLA chancellor rebukes law school event featuring attorney of alleged 9/11 ‘mastermind,’” Los Angeles Times, September 12, 2026. Link

² Pentagon transcript of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, released 2007, quoted in Ross O’Keefe, New York Post, September 10, 2026, and in Kaleem, Los Angeles Times, September 12, 2026.

³ “At 90, UCLA’s Judea Pearl is still asking the big questions,” UCLA Newsroom, September 11, 2026. Link

⁴ Ross O’Keefe, “UCLA professor blasts university for hosting lawyer tied to son’s murderer,” New York Post, September 10, 2026. Link

⁵ Ross O’Keefe, “UCLA chancellor condemns controversial 9/11 campus event,” New York Post, September 11, 2026. Link

⁶ UCLA School of Law, “25 Years After 9/11 Symposium” program, September 10–11, 2026. Link

⁷ Aaron Sibarium, “‘Israel Should Be Attacked’: UCLA To Host 9/11 Symposium Featuring Terror Apologists,” Washington Free Beacon, September 8, 2026. Link

⁸ UCLA Law spokesman, quoted in Sibarium, Washington Free Beacon, September 8, 2026.

⁹ Chancellor Julio Frenk, “Comment regarding media coverage on Sept. 10,” UCLA Newsroom, September 11, 2026. Link

```