New York Governor Kathy Hochul stood before leaders of the Met Council and other major Jewish organizations and signed a bill creating 50-foot buffer zones around houses of worship, a move that NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani recently vetoed. The timing was no accident — hours before the Israel Day on Fifth parade. “Enough is enough,” she declared, positioning herself as a defender against post-October 7 antisemitism.
This is the equivalent of the arsonist throwing a thimble of water at the blaze they started. With her reelection battle against Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman heating up, Hochul is courting Jewish voters with targeted gestures while her broader policies undermine the safety, prosperity, and future of all New Yorkers, and specifically make the Jewish community unsafe.
Let’s ask for a second why there are so many protests in New York to begin with. Why do protesters bother to constantly gather outside of synagogues during the Israel real estate events here, but not in other Jewish communities where these events occur, like in Miami, for example? The simple reason is that protesters believe that if enough pressure is exerted, the change they are seeking will occur. In states like Florida, they do not bother, because there is zero chance that they will be successful. In New York, under Hochul and single-party Democratic rule, they think that the protests will yield results.
The buffer zone bill is merely a bandage on a gaping wound. Protests have harassed synagogues and Jewish institutions since Hamas’ attack on Israel. Creating breathing room around prayer is a bare-minimum response to rising hate. But let’s be clear: Any serious leader, Republican or Democrat, would likely support basic protections for houses of worship, especially after Mamdani vetoed a similar measure. It wasn’t even a solo bill; it was part of the state budget, which was two months past due. When Hochul added this to her version of the budget, it was a 25-foot barrier and included abortion clinics. Only after legislators like Simcha Eichenstein got involved did it become 50 feet and drop that unrelated provision.
Hochul also opted New York into President Trump’s federal school choice program, allowing tax credits for donations to private school scholarships. This move drew praise from some Jewish communities with strong yeshivah traditions. Yet again, credit must be measured. This was an opt-in to a federal program. New York has the largest nonpublic school student population in the country. Blakeman, aligned with Trump’s agenda of school choice, lower taxes, and parental rights, would almost certainly have embraced this federal opportunity or pushed even further. When both candidates would advance the same policy, it becomes moot as a differentiator.
The real question voters must ask is: What does Hochul do that Blakeman would not? And what does Blakeman offer that Hochul fundamentally opposes?
Hochul has actively supported Zohran Mamdani, the democratic socialist NYC mayor whose politics are leftist to the extreme. She endorsed him during his mayoral run and has partnered closely with him on budgets, delivering nearly $10 billion in state aid to close city deficits. This alliance ties her to progressive policies that have strained law enforcement, driven up costs, and prioritized ideology over public safety.
New York under Hochul continues to grapple with the aftermath of soft-on-crime approaches. Bail reform, sanctuary policies, and resistance to robust policing have left communities — Jewish neighborhoods included — vulnerable to theft, violence, and disorder. Antisemitic incidents spiked after October 7, but the broader climate of leniency toward criminals exacerbates insecurity. Blakeman, as Nassau County executive, has emphasized working with law enforcement, supporting police, and prioritizing safety. That difference is stark.
Economically, Hochul’s governance has contributed to a massive state budget — recently around $268 billion — with structural deficits projected in the tens of billions. High taxes, regulatory burdens, outmigration of businesses and residents, and spending priorities that favor expansive government over relief have made New York the highest-taxed state in the country, and New Yorkers are paying 70% more than the national average for energy. New York is also projected to lose two congressional seats in the next census because so many people are fleeing these terrible policies.
Blakeman’s approach centers on lowering taxes, cutting red tape, and fostering economic growth — the proven formula that made Nassau County more manageable. He focuses on public safety through partnership with police rather than progressive experiments.
Pandering to voting blocs with isolated favors while the overall ship sinks is a tired Democratic tactic in deep-blue New York. Hochul delivers a buffer zone here, a school choice opt-in there, and some aid to Jewish organizations, perhaps hoping that she can swing large Jewish communities in Westchester, Monsey, and Brooklyn that do not know Blakeman like Nassau County does.
But results matter more than symbolism. New York’s challenges — crime, affordability, failing schools in many districts, business exodus, and strained social services — stem from one-party dominance and progressive governance that Hochul embodies and enables. Aligning with figures like Mamdani reinforces that direction.
Blakeman represents a genuine alternative: lower taxes to keep families and businesses in New York, aggressive support for law enforcement to restore order, and a rejection of the radical left’s agenda. His platform prioritizes competence and results over performative outreach.
Voters, especially in the Jewish community, have long memories of politicians who show up at holidays, sign symbolic bills, and then govern against their interests. Hochul’s moves at the Met Council breakfast and on school choice are transparent attempts to peel votes from Blakeman in an election where she holds advantages in a blue state. Jewish New Yorkers, and all voters tired of decline, should see through the pandering. Don’t fall for it. Prioritize the differences that will determine whether New York steers clear of the proverbial iceberg or we all search for the nearest lifeboat.