In the days leading up to the mayoral election in New York City, a group of rabbis issued a 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 aimed at “delegitimizing the Jewish community” and encouraging 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, especially within the Jewish community. During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, discussions about Zionism among European Jews included both spiritual and secular perspectives. While some advocated for cooperation with Arab inhabitants of Palestine, others promoted the idea of an exclusive Jewish state, aligning with British colonial interests. This led to the emergence of Political Zionism, which portrayed Palestinians as objects of contempt, undermining their right to self-determination.
By the early 1920s, European Jews marching in Jerusalem with Star of David flags sparked confusion among local residents. Arabs who opposed the march were wrongly accused of attacking Judaism, when in fact they were protesting the claim that Jerusalem belonged exclusively to Jews. As British involvement in Palestine became clearer, the implications of this movement became evident, leading to decades of conflict.
Initially, many American Jews did not fully embrace Zionism or identify with Israel, even after the 1948 war and the declaration of independence. However, by the 1960s, factors such as the Cold War, anti-communist sentiments, and the success of the “Exodus” film, along with Israel’s 1967 military victory, helped shift attitudes. Despite this, some Zionist leaders continued to conflate Zionism with Judaism, a notion later reinforced by groups like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which equated criticism of Israel with antisemitism.
Efforts to pass legislation equating criticism of Israel with antisemitism faced resistance from both parties until state-level initiatives gained traction. Over three dozen states have since enacted such laws, raising concerns about free speech. Following the October 7, 2023 attack by Hamas, the ADL and its allies sought to frame student protests against Israel’s actions in Gaza as threats to Jewish identity. They ignored the fact that these protests targeted policies, not people, and dismissed polls showing Jewish Americans’ divided views on Israeli actions. Instead, they supported efforts to suppress student dissent, leading to arrests, suspensions, and faculty dismissals.
The ADL and Republican lawmakers also used a broad definition of antisemitism that marginalized Arab concerns while prioritizing Jewish safety. A notable incident involved a Jewish woman with an Israeli flag entering a pro-Palestinian protest, claiming she wanted to feel safe. Meanwhile, Zohran Mamdani, a Muslim-American democratic socialist, has gained significant support in New York City. His campaign focuses on affordability, social justice, and progressive policies, challenging the city’s financial elites and political establishment.
Despite opposition from billionaire donors and media narratives painting him as a threat to Jewish safety, recent polls show Mamdani is tied with his main opponent and leads among younger Jewish voters. His advocacy for Palestinian rights and alignment with international human rights organizations do not constitute antisemitism. Rather, the real threat comes from those who conflate all Jews with the actions of the Israeli government.
As New Yorkers prepare to vote, Mamdani’s candidacy represents a challenge to traditional power structures. He has drawn comparisons to historical figures like Charles Evans Hughes, who defended civil liberties during a time of political repression. Unlike current figures like Andrew Cuomo, who has engaged in divisive tactics, Hughes stood for democratic principles and the rights of all citizens, regardless of political affiliation.
Mamdani’s campaign reflects a broader movement for social equity, focusing on affordability, housing, healthcare, and economic opportunity. His platform resonates with working-class and low-income voters, offering a vision of a more inclusive and equitable New York City. In a nation grappling with rising inequality and political polarization, his candidacy signals a potential shift in the political landscape.
Mamdani’s leadership style emphasizes inclusivity, outreach, and collaboration. His focus on dignity and hope draws inspiration from figures like Martin Luther King Jr., whose legacy of justice and equality continues to influence progressive movements. As he prepares to take office, his success will depend on his ability to build a diverse and capable team that can address the city’s complex challenges.
If elected, Mamdani has the potential to reshape New York City’s future, promoting policies that prioritize the needs of working people and foster a more just society. His campaign serves as a reminder that progress often requires challenging entrenched power and embracing bold, transformative ideas.
English 
Arabic