The Dangerous Precedent of Defining Another People’s Identity

New York City’s Mayor Mamdani’s effort to delegitimize the Jewish state appears rooted in something deeper than disagreement with Israeli policy. It reflects an attempt to redefine Judaism itself by separating Jewish identity from the State of Israel.

For most Jews, this separation is not realistic. Aside from a small but highly amplified group of anti-Zionist Jews, Israel is not an optional political attachment. Biblical Israel is embedded in Jewish liturgy, history, memory, and identity – honestly, in our bones. And the modern State of Israel, despite all its many imperfections, represents something profound: a place where Jews can stand without apology, a sanctuary, and something deeply cherished.

That is why efforts to de-Israelize Judaism feel intrusive in a way outsiders often fail to understand.

His campaign may still be in its early stages, but its direction feels clear. Some of what it includes: encouraging protests against synagogue events involving Israel, tolerating demonstrations through Jewish neighborhoods, supporting BDS initiatives, enabling city institutions to distance themselves from Israel, and applying legal and moral standards to Israel in ways that many perceive as selective. The appointment of Miriam Grossman, an openly anti-Zionist Rabbi to a taxpayer-funded Jewish community liaison role sharpened that concern rather than eased it.

The underlying message feels less like criticism of a state and more like an attempt to tell Jews which parts of their identity are legitimate.

And that raises a broader question.

If political leaders can decide for Jews that attachment to Israel falls outside acceptable Jewish identity, can they do the same for other groups?

Jews are not merely a religion; we are a people. But for the sake of argument, let’s apply the same principle elsewhere.

Mamdani is Muslim, so let’s begin there.

If communities with ties to Palestine, Islamic traditions, or broader Muslim identity maintain emotional, spiritual, or cultural attachments across borders, should public officials have the authority to redefine those connections? Should they tell Muslims which historical, national, or religious associations are acceptable and which are not?

Should New York begin examining sermons in mosques to determine whether certain affiliations or teachings are too political, too foreign, or too disconnected from American civic life? Should imams be discouraged from speaking positively about Muslim-majority countries? Should religious communities be pressured to distance themselves from movements or identities deemed controversial?

Most people would reject those ideas immediately – and rightly so.

Because most people understand that identity is not something governments define from the outside.

That is precisely why many Jews react so strongly when Israel is treated as negotiable within Judaism.

Yes, this comparison is intentionally provocative. But there is a serious point beneath it.

Once political leaders assume authority to redefine another people’s identity and decide which parts of their history, religion, or collective attachment are acceptable, the principle does not stay contained. Others can apply it elsewhere.

That is the rabbit hole Mamdani is opening.

His ideology is presented in liberal language and therefore often escapes scrutiny. But underneath it is a much older and more dangerous idea: that outsiders get to determine what a minority is allowed to believe about itself.