Sign up for the Slatest to get the most insightful analysis, criticism, and advice out there, delivered to your inbox daily.
On Thursday, Zohran Mamdani will be sworn in as the first Muslim mayor of New York City. Administering the oath in a public ceremony will be Bernie Sanders, among the most prominently Jewish senators in the country. For weeks, Mamdani has been meeting with constituents and leaders from every sector of New York Jewry to alleviate their concerns about his support for their safety and well-being. By nearly all accounts, these conversations have been a great success. From the Reform Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch—who had co-authored a widely circulated letter against Mamdani—to the Satmar Hasidim in Brooklyn, New York Jews expressed at least cautious optimism about their mayor-elect, if not outright excitement.
During these same weeks, the most powerful Republican politicians and media personalities in the country have leaned deeply into open antisemitism. Two weeks ago, for example, the White House held its annual Hanukkah party. In attendance was Rep. Paul Gosar, an open white nationalist who is deeply embedded in neo-Nazi, Holocaust-denying spaces, including with Nick Fuentes. At the celebration, the president of the United States talked about the power of the “Jewish lobby” behind Israel and bragged about being funded by Jewish money.
A week later was Turning Point USA’s AmericaFest, at which a parade of speakers defended the right of open Nazis to exist within the Republican Party. Tucker Carlson spewed a series of claims about a cabal fighting American national interests as he defended himself against Ben Shapiro’s criticism for platforming Fuentes. Steve Bannon said, to cheers, that Shapiro—whose prominent Jewishness stood out at the affair—“is like a cancer, and that cancer spreads.” And J.D. Vance—the vice president of the United States—also defended the neo-Nazis in his party. He contrasted the GOP’s “free thinkers” to the threat of “a bunch of drones who take their orders from George Soros.” He concluded to the excited crowd: “By the grace of God, we always will be a Christian nation.”
Finally, on Christmas Day, the president of the United States, the secretary of defense, the secretary of homeland security, and much of the rest of our national government posted greetings that described America as a Christian nation, with explicit reference to our savior, Jesus Christ.
So what does the country’s self-described defender against antisemitism, the Anti-Defamation League, have to say about the nation’s dominant political movement welcoming unapologetically antisemitic members into its ranks? Shockingly little. It has chosen not to focus much on these powerful people spouting or platforming explicit, even pro-Nazi, antisemitism. Indeed, it has ignored and even defended many of them.
Instead, the ADL seems laser focused on Mamdani. The group even set up a “Mamdani watch” site, suggesting that he is the greatest threat to American Jews today, although no such “watch” site exists for these other, far more powerful personalities. The group’s latest post, for example, uncovered members of his team with possible antisemitic connections, whom Mamdani then cut. The ADL’s own monitor concluded, “When clear antisemitic statements are identified, Mayor-elect Mamdani’s team can and will respond appropriately.”
The exact opposite has been the case with Republican leadership regarding explicit antisemitism, Christian nationalism, and even Nazism. So why the focus on Mamdani?
The answer is that this is not about antisemitism but rather about preserving Israeli power over Palestinians. Though many Jews are unhappy that Mamdani won’t condemn the phrase “Globalize the Intifada”—he has said he dislikes it but will not denounce it—the mayor-elect is accused of antisemitism mainly because he supports Israel’s existence only as a democratic state and opposes one that gives preferential treatment to Jews over Palestinians.
What does it mean to label a call for equality as antisemitic? Let us interrogate this accusation.
Palestinians within Israel’s internationally recognized borders are citizens but suffer structural discrimination. The controversial 2018 “nation-state” law is perhaps the most egregious expression of this unequal status, but it appears in other areas as well.
Let’s set that aside, however, especially considering our own structural discrimination here at home. Israel currently rules the entire area from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. Indeed, in many ways Israeli leaders already consider the West Bank a part of Israel, including on the country’s official maps. As a result, about half of the people currently controlled by Israel and subject to its military are Palestinian, and only a fraction of them are eligible for citizenship. In other words, the only way Israel exists as a Jewish-majority state is through the expulsion of Palestinians, especially during the 1948 Nakba, and (above all) through the denial of citizenship to Palestinians in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and, obviously, Gaza. “Pro-Israel” critics are correct that if those Palestinians were awarded equality, Israel would become a different state. It would be a binational democracy.
What does it mean to label a call for equality antisemitic because it would destroy Israel as a Jewish state? It means that an argument that opposes Israel’s maintenance of a Jewish majority in this way and demands Palestinian equality is antisemitic because it necessitates the “destruction of Israel” as a Jewish state. It is saying that it is antisemitic to insist on equality more imminently than “Someday, when Israel feels it is ready, it will give Palestinians a state in part of the land with limited sovereignty such that Israel will maintain superior military power over them.”
That is the crux of the issue. Is this position calling for equality—which, because of the demographic reality, will mean the end of Jewish hegemony—antisemitic?
Consider how we would view it if Palestinians were to somehow expel millions of Jews, establish a “Palestinian-majority state,” grant citizenship to only a fraction of the Jews left behind, and keep the remainder subject to military rule without citizenship or civil rights. Imagine if that takeover had included the catastrophic destruction of civilian infrastructure and the deaths of tens of thousands. Imagine also if those Jews who were left disenfranchised were to experience violence by the state and sometimes vigilantes whom the state supports or ignores. And imagine that Palestinians defended all this as necessary for their security because it was the only way to ensure Palestinian self-determination, and accused people of racism if they opposed it?
In other words, imagine a reversal of today’s situation. Under such conditions, would we consider support for Jewish equality as anti-Palestinian bigotry? Would it be racist against Palestinians and a violation of their right to self-determination in that scenario for Jews and others to reject this arrangement as unacceptable and demand both immediate equality and a right of return for the Jewish refugees? If not, why does challenging the current arrangement with a call for equality constitute antisemitism?
American Jews do face a growing threat of antisemitism. It can certainly come from people claiming to oppose Israeli actions but blaming American Jews for them. As we saw tragically in Australia on Hanukkah, the threat of ISIS-inspired terror is also still quite real.
But if we are looking at political threats to Jewish equality and safety in the U.S., with real material consequences, why would we focus on a city mayor committed to equality instead of a national party currently in control of every branch of government? A party whose top leaders from the president on down are openly spewing antisemitism and Christian nationalism—not to mention racism—while publicly defending the inclusion of Holocaust-denying Nazis?
We would do this only if our goal was corrupted.
It is one thing to keep an eye on the entire political spectrum. It is another to misrepresent the principal source of a threat.
