(RNS) — I have not been this depressed about the results of an election since the morning of Nov. 6, 2024, when I realized that Donald Trump had again won the presidency.
New York State Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani won the New York City Democratic mayoral primary Tuesday night (June 24). I have given up political prognostication — anything can happen between now and November. That being said, there is a distinct possibility he could become the next mayor of New York.
That prospect disturbs me. But here is what I hope will happen.
I am hoping some rabbis and New York Jewish leaders — some of whom are the most influential Jewish leaders in the world — will call Mamdani tomorrow. I am hoping they will ask him: “Can we have a meeting?”
At that meeting, I am hoping those leaders will ask him: “Do you know how your remarks and positions have landed on Jewish ears? Can we talk about that? Can we reach an understanding?”
Without that, and with Mamdani potentially becoming mayor, the next several years will not be pretty.
That he is Muslim: no big deal. I have great respect for Islam, in its mainstream, non-Islamist versions. I have learned and taught with Muslim faith leaders. New York City’s Muslims and its immigrant community in general deserve a mayor who comes from their ranks. I cherish the ethnic, religious and cultural diversity that have always made the city great.
That he is a democratic socialist: meh. If you shake my family tree just a little, any number of socialists and communists would fall from its limbs. Mamdani ran on a progressive platform. He supports a rent freeze for all rent-stabilized tenants, free city bus fares, city-owned grocery stores and raising taxes on corporations and wealthy New Yorkers to pay for these programs.
These ideas are expensive, unwieldy and unwise. They will not succeed, especially because there are layers of political bureaucracy through which they must pass. But they are not evil.
So, what bothers me, and many Jews, about Mamdani?
He is anti-Israel. It’s a regrettable position for anyone, but for someone who could be the mayor of the most Jewish city in the United States, it is unacceptable.
He has said he would not visit Israel, which every New York City mayor since 1951 has done. He has publicly backed the boycott Israel movement. He has accused Israel of genocide and apartheid. Those go far beyond your average criticisms of Israeli policy, which would be bad enough.
But what really gets me and many other Jews is that Mamdani claims to oppose antisemitism, but refuses to condemn language that is antisemitic and that could lead to violence against Jews.
Appearing on “The Late Show With Stephen Colbert,” he said: “Antisemitism is not simply something that we should talk about. It’s something we have to tackle. … We have to make clear that there’s no room for it in this city, in this country, in this world. … There is no room for violence in this city, in this country, in this world … ”
That’s well and good, but Mamdani has no problem with the phrase “globalize the intifada.” He said he believes the phrase represents “a desperate desire for equality and equal rights in standing up for Palestinian human rights.”
But that’s not what it means. Intifada means organized violence against Israel and Israelis. We are talking about deliberate, targeted shootings and bombings in buses, cafés and streets. So, the phrase “globalize the intifada” means Jews should be safe nowhere.
As Jonathan Chait writes in The Atlantic:
“An unfortunate spillover effect of the war between Israel and Hamas is its extension into U.S. politics. … Even if globalizing the intifada doesn’t have to mean global violence, that interpretation is plausible. Indeed, some people inspired by the free-Palestine movement do take the slogan literally. Supporters of the movement have engaged in harassment, graffiti, and violence and terrorism against Zionists worldwide.”
Precisely. Remember the attack on Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, the killing of the two young Israeli Embassy staffers in Washington, D.C., and the antisemitic attack in Boulder, Colorado — all of which took place in the last few months.
So, if the “globalize the intifada” phrase is acceptable to the man who could become mayor, it’s fair to ask what the city’s response would be if there were violent acts against Jewish targets in New York City. It gives others permission to excuse, defend and minimize speech that leads to violence. The phrase should have disqualified someone from public office.
To some, the phrase is simply an updated version of what the late author Tom Wolfe called “radical chic.” Apparently, as long as antisemitism is wrapped ideologically in anti-Israel beliefs, it carries no real social stigma on the radical left.
While some may say I am being overly sensitive, imagine if a politician was intellectually defending attacks against gay and lesbian residents. Would it be OK for LGBTQ leaders to be upset about that? Imagine a politician rationalizing attacks against Black people. Would you understand if Black leaders and others were outraged? Why are Jews treated differently?
You might tell us we should not feel this way, or that we don’t understand the difference between anti-Israel sentiment, anti-Zionism and antisemitism. I’d call that emotional colonization trying to invade the Jewish soul and psyche.
I believe I am speaking for many Jewish Democrats when I ask, is this still our party? Has the party of Roosevelt and Kennedy become the party of the “Squad” and Sen. Bernie Sanders, as the Republican Party seems to have become the party of MAGA?
Some Jews will say they want to leave the party and even support moderate Republicans where they can. Others will say they are now politically homeless.
Maybe not. Maybe New York Jewish leaders can work with Mamdani.
And perhaps they could say: “We are going to Israel in a few weeks. There is an open seat in our row on El Al. It has your name on it. Come see the real Israel. You don’t have to love it, but you might come to understand it.”
It’s worth a try.
