Opinion: Weaponizing antisemitism is dirty politics

For those who’ve been on a media blackout, New York City’s Democrats last week overwhelmingly nominated a candidate who just happens to be Muslim and is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), a left-wing branch of the Democratic Party’s coalition.

He is not an antisemite or a Communist, as quite a few people – even those in public office who should know better – are trying to brand him.

Zohran Mamdani grew up in Morningside Heights, went to Bank Street, a private school for upper-middle-class kids, and then on to the prestigious public high school, Bronx Science. His mother is a world-renowned filmmaker and his father is a professor at Columbia University.

In other words, his background is similar to hundreds of thousands of immigrant families who came to New York to live in what the late Mayor David Dinkins once called “a gorgeous mosaic” of nationalities, ethnicities and religions.

I have a similar backstory. Like Zohran’s parents, my Holocaust-surviving mother and father came to New York in the 1950s to seek a better life for themselves and their children. Like Mamdani, my brother went to Bronx Science, while I attended its downtown Manhattan rival, Stuyvesant High School.

I have gotten to know Zohran Mamdani the past six months, first at an introductory lunch, then when he appeared on my mayoral podcast and also through a few very candid and substantive text message exchanges.

Anyone who labels him an antisemite is demeaning that loaded phrase. Many are mistakenly conflating strong criticism of the Israeli government’s policies with antisemitism. By that fallacious definition, we have tens of thousands of Jewish antisemites living in New York City.

Zohran has repeatedly expressed his revulsion at all discriminatory crimes, including the growing number of attacks on Jews in our city. He has vowed to increase funding to combat hate crimes by 800%.

The top consultant on his campaign is Morris Katz and his chief spokesman is Andrew Epstein, both of whom are Jewish New Yorkers.

Late in the campaign, Mamdani developed a political bromance with one of his chief rivals – city Comptroller Brad Lander, a Park Slope progressive Jew who takes his religion very seriously. They even went as far as cross-endorsing each other, a move that virtually assured a Mamdani victory and doomed any chance that Lander had at making a late surge in the race. 

Like Lander, many liberal Jews strongly supported Mamdani’s vision for the city and were thrilled when he won. As Michelle Goldberg recently wrote in The New York Times, they see his success as a victory for the peaceful coexistence of different groups in the city, not as a victory for antisemitism. 

Many of the claims that Mamdani is antisemitic seem to be based on his outspoken criticism of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. 

For many Jewish New Yorkers, particularly older Jews like myself, it is shocking to hear a Democratic candidate speak so critically about the Jewish State, endorsing the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel and even refusing to say that Israel has the right to exist as a “Jewish state.” 

Mamdani instead says Israel should exist as “a state with equal rights for all,” which represents a dramatic shift from the older ideal that Israel should be both “Jewish and democratic.”

Some Jewish New Yorkers fear that Democrats’ increased sympathy for Palestinians and criticism of Israel is evidence that the party has abandoned Jews and no longer cares about antisemitism. But this doesn’t seem to be the case.

A Quinnipiac poll from earlier this month found that 60% of Democrats sympathize more with Palestinians, while only 12% sympathize more with Israelis. 

But the same poll also found that 83% of Democrats believe that prejudice against Jews is a serious problem in the United States. Like Mamdani, it seems that most Democrats are committed to protecting the safety of their Jewish neighbors even if they oppose what Israel is doing in Gaza.

For an increasing number of Democrats – especially younger generations, including younger Jews – the issue of Israel and the issue of antisemitism are seen as completely separate. And Mamdani is a prime example of that. 

As the Times’ Ezra Klein recently put it in a conversation with MSNBC host Chris Hayes: “One thing I have just appreciated about Mamdani and the Mamdani-Lander alliance as a Jewish person, it’s very important that it is possible – and understood to be possible – that you can be anti-Zionist without being antisemitic.”

I have lots of cousins in Israel, whose safety and well-being I often fret about; on a visceral level, Israel is my second home, which I visit at least once every decade of my life.

But like many Israelis and Jews living in the diaspora, while I love Israel and the Israeli people, I have been enraged by its current government and I am a critic of its inhumane treatment of Palestinians in Gaza over the past 20 months.

I think one can detest the terrorism of Hamas and its extremely evil attack on October 7 but also criticize the Israeli government’s unrelenting attacks in Gaza that have killed at least 50,000 people (including thousands of Hamas terrorists) and wounded thousands of others, including innocent little children. The Bible says “an eye for an eye,” not “50 eyes for an eye.”

The callous disregard for the murder and wounding of innocent civilians – which continues to this day – is indefensible.

On the other hand, I believe that Israel’s execution of Hezbollah leaders and Iranian generals and scientists is absolutely fair game and self-defense. But tragically, Netanyahu’s government has not shown the same discipline and precision strikes in Gaza.

I recognize that the Palestinian people feel their homeland was unfairly captured in 1948 and have a deep desire to live on portions of that land and not be occupied and ruled by Israel’s military and right-wing government. 

I certainly don’t begrudge people like Zohran Mamdani and many, many others who vigorously defend Palestinian rights, especially at a time when its people are under an unrelenting siege.

At Stuyvesant in the late 1970s, one of my classmates was the daughter of the Palestinian Liberation Organization’s (PLO) U.N. representative. We spoke on a number of occasions about our views of the Middle East and to this day we have a mutually respectful friendship.

Similarly, when I met Zohran for lunch in early February, I knew of his strongly held beliefs on Israel and Palestine, and I looked forward to having a candid discussion. We did that and much more, and I think we both came away from that meet-up with mutual respect and admiration (at least I certainly did).

I felt like he listened to my concerns and views and politely and respectfully expressed his; he thoughtfully and persuasively pushed back on certain topics but also listened and relented on others.

In no way did I walk away from that lunch thinking he had an ounce of antisemitism in his body.

When he was on my podcast in April, I asked Mamdani if he would condemn Hamas for what it did on October 7.

Mamdani’s answer: “Absolutely. I called October 7th a war crime. I called it horrific. I’ve condemned time and again the killing of civilians. That is completely unacceptable. And that is something I’ve been consistent with and will continue to do because ultimately, you can’t consider one thing a war crime and not the other. This comes back to a consistent application of that.”

That response is an extremely important refutation to those who say Mamdani has only been critical of Israel. 

Now, Mamdani must enter a general election campaign as the Democratic nominee, but with tougher challengers than usual: incumbent Mayor Eric Adams, Republican nominee Curtis Sliwa and independent candidate Jim Walden. And possibly the defeated former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, whose name will also be on the ballot in November but who has not indicated yet whether he will mount a vigorous campaign to win the election.

All of these candidates – with the possible exception of neophyte Walden – are street fighters who will attempt to weaponize Mamdani’s Muslim background and criticism of Israel as reasons to vote for them instead of the Democratic nominee. 

The last tabloid standing – The New York Post – will pummel Mamdani for the next four months on a daily basis for being “anti-Israel” and a “socialist,” which today is incorrectly used interchangeably with “communist.” They are very, very different things.

Mamdani is a democratic socialist, just like Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Mamdani believes in bringing down costs for middle class and low-income New Yorkers. His whole campaign message focused on affordability. (Didn’t President Donald Trump win his campaign promising to bring down inflation?)

Mamdani favors tenants over landlords and wants to freeze the rent on rent-stabilized buildings for the next four years, just as former Mayor Bill de Blasio did a few times during his tenure. 

Mamdani wants bus transportation to be free and fast. He wants to expand de Blasio’s vaunted universal pre-K program to cover even earlier child care, so that young parents can continue to afford to live in the city. 

He wants to create a city-owned grocery store in each borough to ensure that people living in food deserts can access healthy food without breaking the bank. He wants a more progressive tax system which raises rates on the wealthiest of New Yorkers. 

None of these policies are revolutionary.

Not everyone – even many left-of-center Democrats – will agree with all of Mamdani’s policy proposals. One could easily argue that landlords should not have to unilaterally absorb increased expenses while tenants get a free ride. It’s fair to challenge the plan for free buses, free child care and subsidized grocery stores and ask how the city will actually pay for it, especially when Gov. Kathy Hochul has shown no appetite to raise taxes on the wealthy.

These are all fair questions and lines of attack in the coming months. But to accuse Mamdani of being antisemitic or a Communist is simply a dirty tactic.

That said, I believe Mamdani should steer clear of Middle Eastern politics now that he might lead a city of 8 million people — including 1.3 million Jews — the largest Jewish population outside of Israel. He should avoid opining on BDS, the “global intifada,” whether the war in Gaza is a “genocide” and all other loaded topics.

Just like antisemitism and socialist are loaded words that are easily misused, “intifada” is a loaded term that means different things to different people. For Israelis and many American Jews, it evokes the Second Intifada, the period from 2000 to 2005 when armed Palestinian terrorist groups fought Israeli soldiers and launched suicide bombings in Israel. 

Mamdani does not use the term himself, but he has declined to condemn its use because he says it simply means “an uprising” in Arabic and can refer to both armed resistance and peaceful resistance. As long as he denounces violence, he’s on fair ground wanting global peaceful protests about Gaza. But he needs to explain that much better.

We all know the mayor of New York City has absolutely no foreign policy power. Mamdani knows that, too. Yes, as mayor, he’d have a big megaphone and a bully pulpit, but it would be foolish and counterproductive for the new mayor to get dragged into geopolitical debates when he has a huge agenda on his plate.

If Mamdani becomes mayor in January 2026, my recommendation would be that he completely shuts down any discussion of the Middle East in political and media circles around him.

And that message should start right away as he enters the final phase of the general election. Adams, Sliwa, the Post and many others will try to bait him to say things about Israel and Palestine that could inflame the debate and detract from his (so far) winning message to voters.

“I’m sorry,” Mamdani should say to every reporter and voter who asks him about the Middle East, “but I’m only focusing on how I can make New York the most affordable and safest city in the world. I’ll leave foreign policy questions to those who have the responsibility and power to worry about them.”