An Open Letter to Jonathan Greenblatt: This Time, Choose Engagement
Dear Jonathan:
Within hours of Zohran Mamdani’s election as Mayor of New York City last November, you responded by launching a “Mamdani Monitor” to track his administration and its impact on Jewish safety across the city. Your message was clear: ADL viewed the incoming mayor with deep distrust and concern. From the outset, you chose confrontation over engagement.
On September 29 of this year, Mayor Mamdani responded to some of your concerns when he released the Municipal Strategy to Combat Antisemitism. It is the Mamdani administration’s first strategy to combat a specific form of hate, issued before any comparable plan on anti-Black, anti-Asian, anti-Latino, anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, or anti-LGBTQ hate. It is a groundbreaking strategy for combating anti-Jewish bigotry in New York City that includes measures ADL itself has advocated:
- ADL has emphasized the need for better reporting and responses to antisemitic incidents. You could have welcomed the launch of a public-awareness campaign about reporting discrimination and the commitment to address discrimination complaints involving Jewish students in public schools.
- ADL has called for greater protection of Jewish institutions. You could have welcomed the strategy’s provision of $1 million for security improvements at synagogues and other houses of worship and the relaunch of the interagency Security Infrastructure Working Group.
- ADL has long emphasized the importance of Holocaust education for combating antisemitism. You could have supported the strategy’s expansion of Holocaust education, increases in student visits to the Museum of Jewish Heritage, and promotion of education about Jewish history and Jewish contributions to New York.
The strategy presented an opportunity to develop a new working relationship with Mayor Mamdani, a chance to work with the new administration in pursuit of a common goal: Jewish safety in the City of New York. Seizing that opportunity would not have required full agreement. It would simply have meant acknowledging both what you think the strategy gets right and where you think it falls short.
The Simon Wiesenthal Center recognized this opportunity when it announced that it “stands ready to work with Mayor Mamdani and his administration wherever there is meaningful common ground in combating antisemitism,” while also expressing concern that the strategy “discusses several prominent definitions of antisemitism but explicitly declines to adopt one.”
Amy Spitalnick, CEO of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs (JCPA), did the same when she praised the strategy as “rooted in the recognition that Jewish safety and inclusive, pluralistic democracy must go hand-in-hand,” while also raising concerns about increasing violence targeting Jews under the guise of protesting Israel.
In the past, you have also chosen to work with government officials despite disagreements. Nine days after President Trump was inaugurated in 2025, you lauded his executive order, Additional Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism, saying, “We are grateful that President Trump is taking bold action, demonstrating leadership, and implementing this policy.” You also expressed reservations about parts of the measure, including provisions that opened the door to deporting foreign students. “While we applaud strong action and severe consequences for those who commit violent crimes or otherwise break the law,” you said, immigration-related consequences “should not be used to target individuals for their constitutionally protected speech.”
With President Trump, you set your own standard for engagement by acknowledging both what you supported and what concerned you. Why not apply it to Mayor Mamdani?
Why did you choose to flatly reject the Mamdani antisemitism strategy as soon as it was released? What did you gain from dismissing the plan’s concrete measures to provide security grants, accusing Mayor Mamdani of putting politics ahead of fighting antisemitism, and denying that the strategy constitutes a serious effort to combat it?
You had another choice. You could have applied the principle of constructive engagement to areas of both agreement and disagreement. For example:
- You disagree with the mayor about Zionism and objected that the strategy does not specifically call out antisemitic behavior by some pro-Palestinian advocates. You can raise that publicly, as JCPA did with its own concerns. But a relationship built around areas of agreement would also open the door to discussing areas of disagreement. You could explain why you believe some forms of anti-Zionism are antisemitic and ask the mayor where he believes protest crosses the line into antisemitism. You may not persuade him to change his views, but you may give him a better understanding of yours.
- You have said that the strategy’s protections for synagogues and other Jewish institutions don’t go far enough. Rather than dismiss them, why not say what more is needed and press the mayor to provide it? And why not point to the mayor’s additional security funding as an example of why the federal government needs to increase funding for the Nonprofit Security Grant Program, rather than leaving municipalities to fill the gap?
None of this would require you to endorse Mayor Mamdani, set aside your concerns, change your positions, or lower your expectations. But if Jewish safety is the goal, engagement should be part of the strategy. And when the Mamdani administration takes meaningful steps to protect Jews and combat antisemitism, including measures ADL itself has advocated, those steps create common ground you can build on.
The opportunity to do that is still there.
