In the days leading up to the mayoral election in New York City, a group of rabbis issued a public statement titled “A Call to Action,” which criticized public figures such as Democratic candidate Zohran Mamdani. The letter accused Mamdani of refusing to condemn violent slogans, denying Israel’s legitimacy, and accusing the Jewish state of genocide. It then made an unfounded leap to claim that Mamdani’s support for Palestinian human rights and his critique of Israeli behavior are acts that “delegitimize the Jewish community” and “encourage and exacerbate hostility toward Judaism and Jews.”
This argument contains a logical fallacy, as it conflates criticism of Israel or political Zionism with antisemitism. This issue has long been debated, particularly within the Jewish community. During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, as the idea of Zionism was being discussed among European Jews, there were various perspectives on the relationship between Jewish identity and the land of Israel. Some saw it as spiritual, while others viewed it more as a secular cultural bond. Among these groups, some sought cooperation with the Arab population in Palestine, but the dominant movement, known as Political Zionism, advocated for an exclusive Jewish state. This movement aligned itself with British colonial interests and portrayed the Arab inhabitants of Palestine in a derogatory manner.
In the early 1920s, a British journalist reported witnessing European Jews carrying Star of David flags and chanting “Jerusalem is ours” during a march through Jerusalem. The local population, including Christians, Muslims, and Jews, was confused by the foreign symbols and slogans. Arabs who opposed the march were accused of attacking Judaism because of the presence of the Star of David, though their objection was to the claim that Jerusalem belonged to the European Jews and their intent to disregard Arab rights in favor of a colonial-backed state.
As British plans for Palestine became clearer and their support for Political Zionism grew, the Arab population came to understand the implications of this movement. Over the following decades, a violent conflict unfolded.
While American Jews had some sympathy for their co-religionists in Palestine, the majority did not fully embrace Zionism or identify with Israel. This remained true even after the 1948 War and the establishment of the State of Israel. In the 1960s, several factors contributed to a shift in American Jewish attitudes toward Israel, including the Cold War, the anti-communist movement, and the civil rights and anti-Vietnam War movements. The success of the 1960s hasbara film “The Exodus” and Israel’s victory in the 1967 war played significant roles in increasing American Jewish affinity with Israel.
However, this growing support did not satisfy Political Zionists, who continued to equate Zionism with Judaism. In the 1970s, leaders of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), a group historically dedicated to defending Jews against bigotry, co-authored a book titled “The New Anti-Semitism,” arguing that opposition to Israel was a new form of antisemitism. Over time, this conflation gained traction, and efforts by pro-Israel lobbies to pass legislation equating criticism of Israel with antisemitism became more successful at the state level.
Following the October 7, 2023 attack by Hamas, the ADL and its allies used the opportunity to argue that student protests against Israel’s actions in Gaza threatened the identity of Jewish Americans. Despite the fact that the protests targeted Israeli policies rather than Jews themselves, and that polls showed Jewish Americans were divided on the issue, the ADL and Republican lawmakers pushed for restrictions on free speech and university responses. Thousands of students were arrested, and many faced disciplinary action, while faculty supporting the students were silenced or terminated. Foreign students who criticized Israel also faced deportation threats.
Amid rising attacks against both Arab American and Jewish American students, the ADL and Republicans deployed a narrow definition of antisemitism that dismissed Arab concerns and criminalized dissent, while prioritizing Jewish safety and support.
One notable incident involved a Jewish woman wearing an Israeli flag during a pro-Palestinian protest. Despite her provocative presence, she claimed to feel unsafe, highlighting the complex dynamics of identity and security in the current climate.
Zohran Mamdani, a member of the New York State legislature and a candidate for mayor, has gained significant support from young voters, the working class, immigrants, and liberals. After winning the Democratic primary, he faces opposition from financial elites and political establishment figures. Despite claims that his criticism of Israel threatens Jewish safety, recent polls show he is tied with his main competitor and leads among Jewish voters aged 18 to 45.
Mamdani’s advocacy for Palestinian rights and alignment with international human rights organizations do not constitute antisemitism. The real threat comes from those who wrongly equate all Jews with Israel’s actions. His campaign represents a progressive vision focused on affordability and dignity for working people.
As New Yorkers prepare to vote, the election of Mamdani would signal a broader message about inclusivity, opportunity, and the potential for meaningful change. His platform resonates with a wide range of voters, offering a compelling alternative to the divisive politics of the past.
The election of Mamdani could inspire a shift in American politics, challenging the status quo and promoting policies that address the needs of low-income communities. His campaign reflects a commitment to social justice and economic equity, values that align with the legacy of civil rights struggles and the pursuit of hope and dignity.
As a seasoned observer of New York City politics, I recognize the significance of Mamdani’s candidacy. His focus on affordability, inclusiveness, and outreach positions him to lead the city effectively. While challenges will arise, his vision and dedication to the people of New York offer a promising path forward. The outcome of this election will be closely watched, as it represents not just a choice for mayor, but a reflection of the values and aspirations of a diverse and dynamic city.
English 
Arabic