Mamdani Gives New Meaning to the Word Antisemitism

Zohran Mamdani’s escalating hostility toward New York’s Jewish community stands in stark contrast to the values of a city known for its tolerance and commitment to civil rights. Indeed, in just the past few weeks, he has pledged to redefine the word “antisemitism” to suit his own agenda and has dismissed the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the oldest anti-hate organization in the United States, as unrepresentative of Jewish interests. This despite the ADL’s central role in tracking and combating antisemitic hate crimes. Even Jonathan Greenblatt, the ADL’s left-leaning CEO, issued a public rebuke on X: “I’m absolutely blown away by the sheer brazen audacity of @ZohranMamdani, telling all of us in the Jewish community who does and doesn’t represent us.”

Mamdani attempts to frame his engagement with fringe, anti-Zionist, far-left Jewish groups as meaningful outreach. But these communities represent a tiny fraction of Jewish New Yorkers and hold views that are far outside the mainstream. By elevating these voices while disregarding the concerns of the majority of New York’s Jewish community, Mamdani is sidelining those most affected by soaring antisemitism.

All this is a marked change from the current administration. Earlier this summer, Mayor Adams signed Executive Order No. 52, recognizing the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism. In so doing, New York City joined a global coalition including 91 municipalities, 35 states, 46 countries, and countless institutions, achieving a hard-won step forward for Jewish civil rights.

The IHRA definition is not groundbreaking. It says “[A]ntisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred towards Jews.” What is important is that it gives examples to understand how that hatred can manifest.

One IHRA example is the use of double standards against Israel. It helps expose as antisemitic outlandish conduct like a politician vowing to arrest Israel’s sitting Prime Minister – without legal basis and in defiance of federal law – while saying nothing about leaders such as Bashar al-Assad or Xi Jinping, who have overseen mass atrocities. Or promising to divest New York City’s municipal bonds from just one country on earth, Israel.

Another IHRA example is “[d]enying Jewish people their right to self-determination,” something that could arise were a politician to, say, refuse to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state during a mayoral debate in June.

Still another example is “[d]rawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.” One might imagine a mayoral candidate under fire for refusing to condemn calls for a global intifada and sanitizing the phrase by likening it to the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising.

In addition to its utility in detecting antisemitism, the IHRA definition serves two other important purposes.

First, it affords Jews the same dignity afforded to every other minority group: to name the hate they uniquely face. Naming that hate is not always easy, because the virus of antisemitism does what all viruses do to survive: it mutates. In the religious fervor of the Middle Ages, antisemitism was the hatred of Jews for their religion. As populations embraced science, antisemitism mutated and became the hatred of Jews for the inferiority of their race. As it became socially unacceptable to openly hate people for their religion or race, antisemitism mutated again. Today, antisemitism is the hatred of Jews for their country, Israel, singled out and demonized as uniquely offensive to the world order and international human rights.

The IHRA definition accounts for the panoply that is Jew hatred. Perhaps most importantly, it prevents the laundering of Jew hatred through politics, by naming both the extreme right’s hatred of Jews (for their race) and the extreme left’s hatred of Jews (for their state).

Second, the IHRA definition offers a clear legal framework that strengthens civil rights protections by providing consistent standards for evaluating complaints and guiding policy decisions. It equips law enforcement and prosecutors with a tool to identify antisemitic motives in criminal acts, distinguishing them from general offenses and enabling appropriate hate crime enhancements. Finally, the IHRA definition helps reduce legal ambiguity by clarifying when criticism of Israel crosses into antisemitism. In short, it translates a moral imperative into enforceable standards. Only an agent of chaos would dismantle this framework.

Mamdani’s promise to repeal the IHRA definition is especially troubling in the context of how Jews will fare under his public safety agenda. Particularly alarming is his promise to create a “Department of Community Safety” to respond to hate crimes, instead of the full might of the NYPD. After conveniently narrowing what qualifies as antisemitism, it’s no coincidence that the few antisemitic hate crimes still acknowledged as such will be met with the urgency of a community bulletin board.

As Mamdani hardens his stances, Democratic leaders have offered unconditional support, in a stunning betrayal of Jews upon the altar of political expedience. That betrayal is only more painful when those leaders are Jewish. Indeed, Comptroller Brad Lander, Assemblyman Micah Lasher, former Manhattan Borough President Ruth Messinger, and Assemblyman Jerry Nadler, all of whom are Jewish, have endorsed Mamdani without extracting from him a single concession to New York’s Jews. And none has offered a word of criticism against Mamdani since.

Other Jewish New York Democrats, Senator Chuck Schumer among them, have remained conspicuously silent. In Schumer’s case, one might wonder whether his silence stems from genuine conviction or lingering resentment over Mamdani’s protest outside Schumer’s home just one week after the October 7 attack—a protest that led to Mamdani’s arrest. Regardless, Democrats like Schumer can do better. They can withhold their endorsement until Mamdani demonstrates a clear understanding that Jewish lives are not expendable, and that protecting the safety, dignity, and equal standing of Jewish New Yorkers is a fundamental obligation of public office.