Does it matter what the spouses of politicians think about hot-button issues?
Not really, if you ask me. The New York Times disagrees.
On March 4, the New York Times ran a piece about Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY) being put on the defensive over his wife Corinne Levy Goldman’s social media feed. At issue was her engagement from posts that “used insensitive or hateful language directed at Palestinians and groups or people who supported them or criticized Israel” in the weeks following the Oct. 7 terrorist attacks in southern Israel.
TRUMP AND MAMDANI’S UNLIKELY POLITICAL ALLIANCE: ‘A NEW YORK CITY SOAP OPERA’
She liked one post mocking “Jews for Palestine” supporters by comparing them to chickens voluntarily walking into a KFC. She also liked a post from Matt Walsh in which he called Black Lives Matter “a terrorist organization.” Walsh was reacting to the Chicago BLM chapter’s decision to celebrate the Oct. 7 attacks by posting a picture of a paraglider with a Palestinian flag attached to it, captioned “I stand with Palestine. That is all that is it!”
The Goldman family had been in Israel during the attacks and was forced to take shelter. Rep. Goldman is a staunch supporter of Israel and receives funding from AIPAC, while his primary opponent, former city comptroller and Zohran Mamdani campaign surrogate Brad Lander, has been sharply critical of Israel in recent years.
Then on March 6, the New York Times ran a piece about the social media activity of a different notable New York spouse: Rama Duwaji, wife of Mamdani. Earlier in the week, Jewish Insider reported that Duwaji had liked several posts that outwardly celebrated the Oct. 7 attacks. One post showed a bulldozer breaching the fence between Israel and Gaza with the caption “Breaking the walls of apartheid and military occupation.” Text beneath the post characterized the attacks as a part of “systemic change for collective liberation.”
The following day, Olivia Reingold of the Free Press found that Duwaji had also liked a post that cast the rapes of Israeli women on Oct. 7 as a hoax, along with many others that appeared to celebrate and legitimize the terrorist attacks.
The New York Times, whose coverage of Duwaji has been overwhelmingly flattering — in February, they ran a glowing fashion profile on Duwaji, framing her wardrobe choices as a form of intentional political expression — also picked up the story. But the headline made clear their hearts weren’t in it the way they were with Goldman: “Mamdani Defends Wife Amid Criticism of Her Support for ‘Palestinian Cause.’”
To a casual New York Times reader skimming headlines, the message was clear: Poor Duwaji, being made to defend her righteous support for the “Palestinian cause” to hectoring Zionists. The headline obfuscated the real issue: that the first lady of New York City had repeatedly liked posts celebrating a terrorist massacre.
An internet uproar caused the New York Times to change its headline. Now it reads, “After Social Media Scrutiny, Mamdani Says His Wife Is a ‘Private Person’”. The new version still conveniently fails to capture the story in a fair and accurate manner. But at least it no longer equates the “Palestinian cause” with the worst terrorist attack on Jews since World War II.
There is, of course, good reason to support the “cause” of Palestinian people if it involves peaceful coexistence, freedom, and prosperity — such goodwill should be extended to all people on Earth.
NYC VIGIL FOR AYATOLLAH KHAMENEI TURNS VIOLENT AS PROTESTERS CLASH
But if that “cause” involves the indiscriminate and brutal execution of 1,200 Israelis, supporting it is inherently immoral — and a real problem for the first lady of a city with the largest Jewish population outside Israel.
One hopes the New York Times doesn’t view the Oct. 7 attacks as a legitimate component of the “Palestinian cause” as Duwaji appears to, but was only attempting to shield a figure it otherwise openly admires. Because if they do equate the attacks with the cause, they have a much bigger problem than a bad headline.