That’s not activism. It’s intimidation.
Activism has long been a defining force in American public life. From labor movements to civil rights marches, it is how voices have been heard, norms have been challenged, and lasting change has taken hold. But recently, I’ve watched something shift in the tone and tactics of activism on our streets – a change that reflects a broader pattern playing out in cities across the United States. Too often, what passes for social justice advocacy today abandons the core principle that has powered every successful movement in history: changing hearts and minds through persuasion, not intimidation.
As someone who has spent decades in social justice work, I know that effective activism requires strategic engagement and coalition-building. You need to know your audience, build alliances, and win people over to your cause. Yet increasingly, today’s protests are embracing rhetoric that targets communities rather than engaging them. When activism crosses the line into intimidation, it stops being activism at all.
This shift takes on new urgency with the election of Mayor Zohran Mamdani, offering a concrete example of how city leadership responds when protest tactics cross the line from persuasion into intimidation – a dynamic that many American cities across the country are now facing. One of the earliest tests of that distinction came shortly after Mamdani was elected, when protesters gathered outside Park East Synagogue in November 2025, targeting an event about Jewish immigration to Israel. Many synagogue-goers experienced the chants as threatening. Rather than unequivocally condemning intimidation directed at a house of worship, the mayor’s office framed the episode through the lens of the protest’s political claims, suggesting the synagogue was promoting “activities in violation of international law.” That framing, which appeared to weigh the legitimacy of the event and the protest as equivalent despite the clear imbalance in vulnerability, raises questions about how city leadership – in New York and elsewhere – will respond to this evolving protest culture and what signals that sends to targeted communities.
The challenge isn’t unique to any single cause. Across movements – whether for Palestinian rights, environmental action, or any other issue – tactics matter as much as intentions. If your goal is to change American policy toward the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, intimidating synagogue-goers is counterproductive. You’re targeting people with no direct influence over the policies you oppose while ensuring they will never support your cause.
The most troubling aspect of this shift is how easily it normalizes antisemitism. Many people involved in anti-Israel protests genuinely believe they are standing up for oppressed people. But when that advocacy crosses into targeting Jewish institutions, when it erases the complexity of a decades-long conflict, and when it holds all Jews responsible for the actions of the Israeli government, it crosses a line from political criticism into something else entirely.
When elected officials or community leaders fail to distinguish between criticism of government policy and rhetoric that targets entire communities, they give permission for the latter to flourish. When protests outside synagogues are defended or dismissed, it sends a message about whose safety matters – and whose doesn’t.
True activism requires knowing your audience and building coalitions, not enemies. I’ve seen this play out most clearly when movements focus on engagement rather than confrontation. In my work advancing disability inclusion in Hollywood, we learned that celebrating progress often moves people further than condemning missteps. Studios became partners rather than adversaries. The same principle applies here.
Real activism must also be rooted in truth. When protesters invoke historically inaccurate narratives about complex conflicts or hold entire communities responsible for government actions they don’t control, they undermine their credibility and make productive dialogue nearly impossible.
For New York’s Jewish community, this moment calls for deeper engagement and more intentional organizing – not retreat. At a time when tensions are rising, staying visible, principled, and engaged in civic life – from community organizing and coalition-building to participation in public discourse – matters more than ever. Even when the moment feels unsettling, it can also serve as a catalyst for renewed purpose and responsibility.
For Mayor Mamdani, the challenge ahead is clear. New York’s diversity is its strength, but that diversity is weakened when any one community is treated as a proxy for political disputes. Leadership means drawing a line between legitimate protest and tactics that isolate or stigmatize entire groups. How the city handles this distinction will shape New York not just for the Jewish community, but for all communities navigating disagreement in a shared public space.
And for those engaging in activism around any cause, the moment demands a return to first principles. Are your tactics helping or hurting what you’re trying to achieve? Are you changing minds or merely hardening them?
Cities across the US stand at a crossroads. They can recommit to activism that actually creates change or drift further into a space where intimidation masquerades as advocacy. The choice will be defined not just by protesters in the streets, but by how our leaders – and all of us – respond.
Jay Ruderman is President of the Ruderman Family Foundation and author of Find Your Fight: Make Your Voice Heard for the Causes That Matter Most.