Bipartisan Backlash Against Mayoral Candidate Zohran Mamdani Over Antisemitism Definition

In a striking display of bipartisan unity, two congressmen from opposite sides of the Hudson River have publicly criticized New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani for his stance on the definition of antisemitism. This controversy has ignited a broader discussion about the implications of antisemitism in contemporary politics, particularly in the context of rising hate crimes and the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The Controversy Unfolds

On Wednesday, Representatives Mike Lawler (R-NY) and Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) issued a joint statement condemning Mamdani’s recent comments regarding the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism. This definition, which has been adopted by 35 states and numerous countries worldwide, characterizes antisemitism as “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews.” It also highlights that manifestations of antisemitism can be directed at both Jewish and non-Jewish individuals, as well as their property and community institutions.

In June, Mayor Eric Adams signed an executive order incorporating the IHRA definition into New York City’s policies aimed at combating anti-Jewish hate. However, Mamdani, a self-identified democratic socialist, has expressed his intention to abandon this definition if elected. He argues that it conflates legitimate criticism of Israel and Zionism with antisemitism, a position he articulated in an interview with Bloomberg News.

Mamdani’s Position

Mamdani’s comments have raised eyebrows, particularly his support for the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which seeks to apply economic pressure on Israel in response to its policies towards Palestinians. “I am someone who has supported and support BDS and nonviolent approaches to address Israeli state violence,” he stated, drawing a clear line between his political beliefs and the mainstream definitions of antisemitism.

This stance has not only drawn ire from lawmakers but has also sparked a broader debate about the intersection of free speech, political activism, and hate speech. Critics argue that Mamdani’s position undermines efforts to combat rising antisemitism, particularly in light of recent spikes in hate crimes against Jewish communities.

Bipartisan Criticism

Lawler and Gottheimer did not hold back in their condemnation of Mamdani’s remarks. They described his attempt to roll back the IHRA definition as “shameful, dangerous, and completely disgusting.” They emphasized that the BDS movement is inherently antisemitic and that efforts to delegitimize Israel’s right to exist should not be tolerated. “There are no two sides about the meaning of this slogan – it is hate speech, plain and simple,” they asserted.

The congressmen’s statement reflects a growing concern among lawmakers about the implications of Mamdani’s views, especially given the alarming rise in antisemitic violence across the United States. According to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), incidents of antisemitic hate crimes have surged in recent years, prompting calls for stronger measures to combat this trend.

Legislative Efforts

In response to the ongoing concerns about antisemitism, Lawler and Gottheimer are advocating for the passage of the Antisemitism Awareness Act in Congress. This legislation aims to enshrine the IHRA definition into law, thereby providing a clearer framework for identifying and addressing antisemitic behavior. The ADL has endorsed this approach, stating that the IHRA definition is the most effective tool for combating antisemitism and that any efforts to undermine it are “dangerous” and “out of step” with the prevailing consensus.

The ADL’s support for the IHRA definition underscores the importance of a unified approach to tackling antisemitism, particularly in a political climate where divisions are often stark. “ADL proudly welcomed New York City joining the coalition of cities that use the IHRA Working Definition,” the organization stated. “Efforts to dismantle or discredit this consensus are dangerous and out of step with the broad, bipartisan, and international recognition that the IHRA Working Definition is a vital tool in combating antisemitism.”

Mamdani’s Response

In light of the backlash, Mamdani’s campaign has sought to clarify his position. A representative for Mamdani, Dora Pekec, stated that a potential Mamdani administration would align its approach to antisemitism with the Biden Administration’s National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism. This strategy emphasizes education, community engagement, and accountability as means to reverse the normalization of antisemitism and promote open dialogue.

Pekec’s comments suggest that Mamdani’s approach may not be as dismissive of antisemitism as critics have claimed. However, the tension between his political beliefs and the established definitions of antisemitism remains a focal point of contention in the mayoral race.

Historical Context

The debate surrounding the definition of antisemitism is not new. Historically, the term has been used to describe a wide range of attitudes and actions against Jewish people, from social discrimination to violent pogroms. The IHRA definition was established in 2016 to provide a comprehensive framework for identifying antisemitism in various contexts, including criticism of Israel. This definition has been adopted by numerous countries and organizations, reflecting a growing recognition of the need to address antisemitism in all its forms.

The BDS movement, which Mamdani supports, has been a contentious issue within this debate. Critics argue that it often crosses the line into antisemitism by delegitimizing Israel’s right to exist. Supporters, however, contend that it is a legitimate form of protest against perceived injustices.

Conclusion

The clash between Zohran Mamdani and bipartisan lawmakers over the definition of antisemitism highlights the complexities of contemporary political discourse. As the mayoral race heats up, the implications of this debate extend beyond New York City, touching on broader issues of free speech, political activism, and the urgent need to combat rising hate crimes. With the stakes higher than ever, the outcome of this controversy may have lasting repercussions for how antisemitism is understood and addressed in the United States.