Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

The Antisemitic Campaign Against Mamdani

Opinion

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani.

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani speaks at Grand Army Plaza in Brooklyn on January 02, 2026 in New York City.

Getty Images, Spencer Platt

The campaign against Mamdani by some conservative Jewish leaders and others, calling him antisemitic, has just reached a new level with accusations of antisemitism from Israel.

From almost the beginning of his campaign, Mamdani has faced charges of antisemitism because he was critical of Israel's conduct of the war in Gaza and because he has spoken against the proclamation that Israel is a "Jewish state." The fact that his faith is Islam made him an easy target for many.


However, the accusations against Mamdani are totally unfounded. He has clearly and unambiguously stated his strong feelings against antisemitism. Mamdani has consistently spoken of the importance of combating antisemitism. He has said that New York is experiencing a "crisis of antisemitism," and that “Antisemitism is not simply something that we should talk about — it’s something that we have to tackle.”

What is the claimed "proof" of his antisemitism? The main proof lies in this disapproval of the definition of Israel as a "Jewish state."

First of all, to be anti-Zionist is not the same as being antisemitic. As a Jew, while I fully support the State of Israel and the necessity of its establishment, I cannot overlook the basic facts of the situation. Jews took land that had been in the hands of Arabs (Palestinians) for generations, and they are continuing in that tradition now in the West Bank. I am not a Zionist. Neither is Mamdani, but he supports the existence of the State of Israel.

By saying this, I am not saying the blame for the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians lies solely with Israel. As I have written previously, there is plenty of blame on both sides. (See my post, "Is There a Solution to the Ongoing Middle East Crisis?")

Second, in 2018, 60 years after the creation of the State of Israel, the Israeli parliament (Knesset) passed a law defining Israel as "a nation-state of the Jewish people." You would think this law would have passed by a landslide, but the vote in the Israeli legislature was 62-55. Clearly, even in Israel, this statement was controversial. So to be against this statement is not proof of antisemitism.

Israel is a democracy, but it is a flawed one. Its Palestinian citizens—yes, Palestinians who reside in Israel are citizens of Israel—have always been second-class citizens. Their villages receive substantially less support than Jewish villages, and they, as individuals, receive less support. But clearly, Israel is much more than the nation-state of Jews.

What would Jews think if Congress passed a bill recognizing the United States as a Christian state, since Christianity is the religion of the majority (64%) of U.S. citizens? The outrage would be huge.

As a Jew, I feel it is important to say that to conflate being against current policies of the State of Israel or its defining itself as a "Jewish" state with being antisemitic is false and is pandering to the Jewish vote. Those feelings might coexist, but often do not. That is certainly the case with Mamdani.

The most recent piece of "proof" of Mamdani's antisemitism is his revocation of two of then-Mayor Eric Adams' Executive Orders as part of his revocation of all Orders from the period after Adams' indictment. The one order prevented city agencies from boycotting or divesting from Israel. The other adopted the IHRA's (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) definition of antisemitism.

First, Mamdani revoked all of Adam's Executive Orders issued after he was indicated, not just the two regarding Israel.

More importantly, what is the IHRA definition of antisemitism? It is a very broad definition, with many supporting examples, none of which apply to the actions of Mamdani.

Even the IHRA is very careful to say that criticism of Israel is not, in and of itself, an indication of antisemitism. It is in the criticism of Jews (as Jews) causing harm that antisemitism lies. But Mamdani has not said that. Rather, he—as I—is against the actions of Netanyahu, and his ultra-nationalist supporters, as prosecutors of the war in Gaza as well as the "nation-state" law. One can be 100% in support of Israel and yet be 100% against what Netanyahu is doing. This is not antisemitism.

The one IHRA example that enemies of Mamdani have seized upon is "denying the Jewish people the right to self-determination." But saying that he is against the 2018 proclamation that Israel is a Jewish state does not deny Israeli Jews the right of self-determination. Surely the many Israeli legislators who voted against this law were not against Jews' right of self-determination.

And now, Israel has accused Mamdani of antisemitism, saying that he has "shown his true face" by "scrapping the IHRA definition of antisemitism." That he has thrown "antisemitic gasoline" on the fire.

It is true that Mamdani has apparently chosen not to reinstate the IHRA definition Order. In response to criticism, he has said that he doesn't think the IHRA definition helps protect Jewish New Yorkers. I would respectfully disagree. Given my interpretation noted above, there is no reason not to adopt the definition. I would thus advise Mamdani to do so, as his action has become "proof" of his antisemitism, or at least his insensitivity to the issue.

This campaign against Mamdani is typical Trump-era tactics. By distorting the facts and appealing to emotions, those opposed to him seek to turn Jews against Mamdani.

But these campaigns could be counter-productive: To say, as Councilwoman Ms. Vernikov (R) did, that "pro-Hamas antisemites" are emboldened by Mamdani, or to say, as then-Mayor Adams did, that Jews "had reason to be fearful of their safety" under Mamdani, is to encourage that very activity by distorting Mamdani's views and thus encouraging antisemites to feel they have found a comrade.

Mamdani has the intent to be a mayor who makes life in New York better and safer for all New Yorkers, with a special emphasis on support for workers. He has set an ambitious set of goals for his administration. He deserves and needs the support of all New Yorkers if he is to have a chance at fulfilling these goals over the objections of various entrenched interests.


Ronald L. Hirsch is a teacher, legal aid lawyer, survey researcher, nonprofit executive, consultant, composer, author, and volunteer. He is a graduate of Brown University and the University of Chicago Law School and the author of We Still Hold These Truths. Read more of his writing at www.PreservingAmericanValues.com


Read More

Trump’s Anti-Latino Racism is a Major Liability for Democracy

Close-up of sign reading 'Immigrants Make America Great' at a Baltimore rally.

Trump’s Anti-Latino Racism is a Major Liability for Democracy

Donald Trump’s second administration has fully clarified Latinos’ racial position in America: our ethnic group’s labor, culture, and aspirations are too much for his supporters to stomach. The Latino presence in America triggers too many uneasy questions (are they White?), too many doubts (are they really American?), and too much resentment (why are they doing better than me?).

Trump’s targeted deportations of undocumented Latinos, unwarranted arrests of Latino citizens, and heightened ICE presence in Latino neighborhoods address these worries by lumping Latinos with Black people. Simply put, we have become yet another visible population that America socially stigmatizes, economically exploits, and politically terrorizes because aggrieved White adults want to preserve their rank as our nation’s premier racial group. The cumulative impacts are serious: just yesterday, an international panel of investigators on human rights and racism, backed by the U.N., found that such actions have resulted in “grave human rights violations.”

Keep ReadingShow less
People waving US flags

People waving US flags

LeoPatrizi/Getty Images

Democracy Fellowship Spotlight: Joel Gurin on Trustworthy Data

Earlier this year, the Bridge Alliance and the National Academy of Public Administration launched the Fellows for Democracy and Public Service Initiative to strengthen the country's civic foundations. This fellowship unites the Academy’s distinguished experts with the Bridge Alliance’s cross‑sector ecosystem to elevate distributed leadership throughout the democracy reform landscape. Instead of relying on traditional, top‑down models, the program builds leadership ecosystems: spaces where people share expertise, prioritize collaboration, and use public‑facing storytelling to renew trust in democratic institutions. Each fellow grounds their work in one of six core sectors essential to a thriving democratic republic.

Recently, I interviewed Joel Gurin, who founded and now leads the Center for Open Data Enterprise (CODE) and wrote Open Data Now. Before launching CODE in 2015, he chaired the White House Task Force on Smart Disclosure, which studied how open government data can improve consumer markets. He also led as Chief of the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at the Federal Communications Commission and spent over a decade at Consumer Reports.

Keep ReadingShow less
A balance.

A retired New York judge criticizes President Trump’s actions on tariffs, judicial defiance, alleged corruption, and executive overreach, warning of threats to constitutional order and the rule of law in the United States.

Getty Images

A Pay‑to‑Play Presidency Testing the Limits of Our Institutions

Another day, another outrage, and another attack on the Constitution that this President has twice taken a vow to uphold. Instead of accepting the Supreme Court decision striking down his imposition of tariffs, the President is now imposing them by executive order and excoriating the Justices who ruled against him. His disrespect for the Constitution and the judiciary is boundless.

To this retired New York State judge, all hell seems to have broken loose in our federal government. Congress lies dormant when it is not enabling the chief executive’s misuse and personal acquisition of federal funds, and, notwithstanding its recent tariffs ruling, a majority of the Supreme Court generally rubber-stamps the administration’s actions through opaque “shadow docket” rulings. In doing so, SCOTUS abdicates its role as an independent check.

Keep ReadingShow less
Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

People clear rubble in a house in the Beryanak District after it was damaged by missile attacks two days before, on March 15, 2026 in Tehran, Iran. The United States and Israel continued their joint attack on Iran that began on February 28. Iran retaliated by firing waves of missiles and drones at Israel, and targeting U.S. allies in the region.

Getty Images, Majid Saeedi

Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

Most of what we have heard from the administration as it pertains to the Iran War is swagger and bro-talk. A few days into the war, the White House released a social media video that combined footage of the bombardment with clips from video games. Not long after, it released a second video, titled “Justice the American Way,” that mixed images of the U.S. military with scenes from movies like Gladiator and Top Gun Maverick.

Speaking to reporters at the Pentagon, War Secretary Pete Hegseth boasted of “death and destruction from the sky all day long.” “They are toast, and they know it,” he said. “This was never meant to be a fair fight... we are punching them while they’re down.”

Keep ReadingShow less