Mamadani and Jewish New York

Rabbi Moishe Indig and Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani

I have been saying all along that Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani will not be the disaster for the New York Jewish community that many people think he will be. What I have said—and still believe—is that his virulent anti-Zionist rhetoric may be the real danger. Because it may encourage antisemites to come out of the closet and harass us in numbers never seen in New York before. Acts of violence may very well increase too, fueled by a mayor whose anti-Zionist rhetoric aligns with much of the pro-Hamas community.

That said, I am equally convinced (as I’ve said in the past) that Mamdani will nevertheless do everything in his power to protect Jewish communities in New York from the very harassment his rhetoric may unintentionally incite.

Many have noted that one can criticize Israel without being an antisemite. But antisemitism is often disguised as anti-Zionism, and it can sometimes be hard to tell the difference.

It helps to consider the source.

In the mayor-elect’s case, his anti-Zionism is rooted in two foundational principles. One is his identification with progressive socialism, which sees nations and peoples as either oppressors or the oppressed. Regardless of context or nuance. In Mamdani’s eyes, it is clear who is who in the Middle East: Israelis are the oppressors and Palestinians the oppressed - who must be ‘liberated’.

The other principle is his Muslim faith, which entirely rejects any Jewish claim to the land. That is why Mamdani does not believe Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish state, labels it an apartheid state, supports BDS, believes Israel is guilty of genocide, considers its prime minister a war criminal he would like to arrest if he visits New York, and enthusiastically supports pro-Palestinian demonstrators.

And that is why the overwhelming majority of the mainstream Jewish community—lay and rabbinic, across all denominations urged people to vote against him on election day.

None of this is new. But does it mean he is an antisemite? I think that depends on how one defines the term. There are those who argue that denying the Jewish people the right to a state is, by definition, antisemitic. And yet, there are more than a few Jews who agree with Mamdani on all the above-mentioned points. Jews you might see joining pro-Palestinian protests, shouting about Israel’s Apartheid, genocide and calling Netanyahu a war criminal that should be arrested.

There are, however, indications that Mamdani means what he says about Jewish New Yorkers. Even though he vehemently disagree with their views on Israel. He has repeatedly said that they have as much right to express their views as he does his. He has repeatedly and emphatically insisted that he will fight antisemitism in the city and use every resource available to protect Jewish New Yorkers. Some would cynically say that these are just meaningless words. That it’s all political theater, designed to assuage the fears about the rising tide of antisemitism.

But, I disagree. Socialism, by definition, does not discriminate. Every human being is to be treated equally and deserves protection from harm. I believe that Mamdani wholeheartedly buys into that philosophy. I would not be surprised if socialism is more a religion to him than Islam.

Even though he knows the Jewish community did not support him (to put it mildly), he has nonetheless promised to treat Jews no differently from any other New Yorker, whether they voted for him or not. I believe him.

Which brings me to what Satmar did. I am no fan of Satmar. My issues with them are serious but beyond the scope of this post. They endorsed Mamdani for mayor.

Their endorsement did not surprise me at all. Not because they agree with him about Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state (in pre-messianic times). That is not what motivated them. A controversial interview with Satmar political leader Moishe Indig by Mishpacha Magazine spelled out plainly  why. It was purely transactional. They endorsed the candidate they believed would surely win in order to get in his good graces. They have succeeded.

Understandably, the entire Jewish establishment was furious, including Agudah. But Satmar believed they would gain nothing by endorsing a losing candidate, and instead chose to endorse the one they knew would win.

Now Satmar will be first in line to receive favors from the Mamdani administration. An administration eager to prove, as Mamdani repeated again and again during the campaign, that he is not antisemitic.

In fact, he has already demonstrated this by joining Satmar at one of their celebrations - after his election. He had no political need to do so. The video shows he loved every minute of it. That image of him does not look like the face of an antisemite.

True, he also criticized a Nefesh B’Nefesh event after the election. But criticizing an organization that facilitates Aliyah to Israe should not surprise anyone, given that he does not believe Israel has the right to exist. At the same time, I am sure he will deal swiftly with any violence perpetrated against any Jewish New Yorker.

And now after the election, Agudah recently announced that they will engage with Mamdani and seek cooperation with City Hall as needed. My guess is that they will get it.

Mishpacha was heavily criticized for interviewing Satmar about their endorsement. But I don’t understand why knowledge is bad. It helps to know why a major religious community did something so counterintuitive, when everyone else did the opposite. Maybe we can learn something.

Bottom line: I agree with Rabbi Michael Broyde, who wrote the following in Cross-Currents:

Navigating complex times in a world full of people with ideas and ideals at tension with Jewish tradition is complex. We, “the community of the faithful,” face difficult headwinds. Moral clarity and complete resistance—“even if it produce horrible death and complete destruction”—sometimes seem easier religiously than a policy of accommodation. Indeed, even successful accommodation still incurs attack by those who bemoan our failure to stand tall (ignoring the consequences we would have then suffered). We all know accommodation isn’t popular. It lacks the cachet of moral purity and absolutism, of defiant declarations. But life is usually lived in a grayer place, unattractive as that is. It is no surprise that political accommodation works best, particularly when it is combined with internal moral and halachic clarity.

This is not to say that Satmar was necessarily right. It is only to say that they were not necessarily wrong, either. In the end, they may come out winners - first in line to get everything they want out of City Hall.

With respect to the safety of Jewish New Yorkers I believe they will get the protection they need when they need it. Even if only because it is in Mamdani’s political interest to make sure that happen.

Emes Ve-Emunah is now available at substack. To receive posts and comment you must subscribe. It's free.