Zohran Mamdani and Islamophobia

Earlier this week I wrote about the failures of the Democratic establishment and specifically mentioned the New York City Democratic mayoral primary in which almost the entire Democratic establishment had lined up in favor of former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and against New York State Assembly member Zohran Mamdani. As it turned out, the Democratic establishment was more out-of-touch than even I had believed. Mamdani easily dispatched Cuomo in the first round of the ranked choice voting system used in New York City and will likely be the overwhelming victor once votes are distributed through other rounds. Mamdani's victory created considerable consternation among many Democrats, as well as Republicans and independents. It also unleashed a wave of Islamophobia that spread across political divisions.

Among Republicans, Islamophobia has become so common that it is almost unsurprising at this point, and Republicans wasted no time after Mamdani's victory to engage in this characteristic behavior. U.S. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene tweeted an artificial intelligence-enhanced picture of the Statue of Liberty dressed in an abaya with the caption, "This hits hard." Her fellow Member of Congress, Nancy Mace, tweeted a picture of Mamdani attending a religious ceremony and wrote, "After 9/11 we said ‘Never Forget.’ I think we sadly have forgotten." Elise Stefanik, who is also a Member of Congress but is rumored to be considering running for governor in New York, aimed her attack at the current Governor Kathy Hochul. But Stefanik included in her tweet the allegation that Mamdani is an "antisemitic, jihadist". Another member of Congress, Andy Ogles, referring to Mamdani as "little muhammad," wrote a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi asking for Mamdani to be denaturalized and deported. Even Charlie Kirk, leader of Turning Point USA, a Republican-aligned organization, joined in. Before the results were known, he tweeted that "24 years ago a group of Muslims killed 2,753 people on 9/11...Now a Muslim Socialist is on pace to run New York City". He followed that up by tweeting, "America’s largest city was attacked by radical Islam 24 years ago, and now a similar form of that pernicious force is poised to capture city hall."

The common thread connecting these allegations is the suggestion that because Mamdani is a Muslim, he holds extremist views, is aligned with the September 11 attackers, and will impose strict Islamic practices on New York City. This is a bigoted and Islamophobic argument. While Mamdani is Muslim, he has never demonstrated any support for Islamic extremists. In fact, his father is a Shia Muslim who would be considered a heretic by groups such as Al-Qaeda (the group with which the 9/11 attackers were affiliated) and ISIS. His mother, who was raised in a Hindu family, is not Muslim. Mamdani has always demonstrated the sort of tolerance of other religions that might be expected from someone raised by parents of different religions. While these Republicans have demonstrated pure bigotry, they will have no fear of repercussions. Islamophobia is completely accepted within the Republican Party and it will not cost them a single vote. Republican leadership will have no concerns.

While Republicans, as well as some members of other parties, seem to condone Islamophobia, they frequently profess great concern about antisemitism. I have written before about how "antisemitism" has been redefined to often include opposition to Israel. This tactic has been employed against Mamdani. In an interview with "The Bulwark", Mamdani was asked about the phrase "globalize the intifada". To be clear, Mamdani has not used this phrase himself. However, as he explained, the phrase speaks to a "desire for equality and equal rights in standing up for Palestinian human rights." He also noted that "intifada" was the word used by the U.S. Holocaust Museum in its Arabic translation for the term "uprising" to describe the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising.

Let me sidetrack for a moment to discuss the word "intifada". Unlike probably 99% of those criticizing Mamdani, I have studied Arabic. Also, coincidentally, I was in Jerusalem for a week in December 1987, which was the month that the First Intifada started. So I have firsthand experience with it. The Intifada was a popular uprising, largely consisting of nonviolent protest. The word “intifada" in Arabic roughly translates to "shaking off". It has been used to describe uprisings throughout history, and indeed, the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising was described as an "intifada". Did Palestinians commit violence during the two intifadas? Yes, they did, but those incidences did not characterize the bulk of the protests. Many of the protests were completely nonviolent, but others consisted of young boys throwing stones at heavily armored Israeli soldiers hiding behind armored vehicles. The Israelis would attack the protesters with clubs and, following the orders of then Defense Minister Yitzhak Rabin to "break their bones," leave many young Palestinians with broken arms and legs. Things eventually escalated from there. But the main point here is that the Intifada was a struggle for liberation and ended when Palestinians were granted limited autonomy in the Occupied Territories. It was never an attempt to destroy Israel or simply kill Jews.

This leads to another issue. Who gets to define what terms mean? Are those who use certain terms responsible for explaining what the words mean, or is that a privilege left to those who hear the phrases? There is a constant effort to delegitimize groups by redefining their language to have meanings that they did not intend and do not recognize. In this case, Mamdani has explained what "intifada" means to him. Moreover, his understanding of the word is consistent with its meaning in Arabic and its historic usage. Memdani's critics, however, argue that "globalize the intifada" has another, much more sinister meaning that refers to killing Jews and the destruction of Israel, and that what matters is their definition of the phrase. They contend that Mamdani must denounce the phrase, in other words, accept their definition of it. He has refused to do so. As a result, many have declared him to be antisemitic.

The second issue involved a question to Memdani about whether he recognizes "Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state." Memdani replied, "that Israel has a right to exist as a state with equal rights." About 20 percent of Israel's population is non-Jewish. The issue here is not with Mamdani's position, but rather those who insist that he must recognize Israel as a "Jewish state" and ignore the rights of the non-Jewish minority. But, again, this has led to suggestions that he is antisemitic. In effect, Memdani's refusal to recognize Jewish supremacy in Israel is used to depict him as anti-Jewish.

This is not limited to Republicans. The current Mayor of New York City, Eric Adams, at one time a Democrat but now an independent, was asked by Rusa Radio about "concerns regarding antisemitism" and Mamdani. Adams' reply was "Yes, I think their concerns are valid. He has clearly been unwilling to just address some of the basic issues as just the acknowledgement of Israel and his real unwillingness to talk about some of the behavior that has played out on our streets." Adams is a clown who can often speak very charismatically while also not making any sense whatsoever. But, in this case, it should be noted that Mamdani has acknowledged Israel.

Much of the media has fixated on antisemitism as if it were the most important issue of the campaign. Jake Tapper recently conducted an interview with Brad Lander, the current comptroller of New York City and the highest-ranking elected Jewish official in the city. Lander was also a candidate for mayor and cross-endorsed Mamdani. Since the election, Lander has been one of the most visible supporters of Mamdani. Tapper spent the entire interview ignoring the issues upon which Mamdani and Lander had run and, instead, discussing Israel and antisemitism. Lander admitted to disagreeing with Mamdani on Israel and Palestine and personally not being comfortable with the phrase "Globalize the Intifada", but "we are not running for foreign policy though, we are running for the city of New York." Lander went on to accuse some opponents of "weaponizing antisemitism" and "treating Jews as pawns for political purposes." Lander insisted that Mamdani, regardless of their disagreements, "will be a Mayor who will keep all Jews including Jews like me safe."

A more disturbing incident took place involving Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. In an interview with Brian Lehrer, a caller phoned in and made a number of misleading or outright false allegations about Mamdani. Gillibrand was asked to respond and said, that Jews "are alarmed by past positions, particularly references to global jihad. This is a very serious issue because people that glorify the slaughter of Jews create fear in our communities." Her suggestion that Mamdani supports "global jihad" and glorifies the "slaughter of Jews" is outrageous and has no basis in reality. Her spokesperson later claimed that she had mispoken and meant to say "global intifada", but it doesn't really make much difference. Gillibrand also falsely claimed that "The global intifada is a statement that means destroy Israel and kill all the Jews."

When Lehrer pointed out that Mamdani has explicitly said that he does not support violent intifada, Gillibrand replied that "I would say to him that is not how the words are received and it doesn't matter what meaning you have in your brain it is not how the word is received and when you use a word like ‘intifada’ to many Jewish Americans and many Jewish New Yorkers that means you are permissive about violence against Jews." So, back to what I wrote above. Gillibrand doesn't care what Mamdani thinks words mean — even where there is considerable support for his usage being accurate — but rather what she and Jewish New Yorkers think they mean. She went on to say that it is important to be very specific when using words. Never mind that her definition of "intifada" has no historical basis and that she had just previously misspoken about "jihad." She then argued that, "You talk to our LGBTQ community, you talk to our Black community, you talk to our Hispanic communities; there are words and there are imagery, and there are things that are said, that they will hear it and feel it, as a dagger to their throat." Notably, she does not mention Muslims among the groups who are often the targets of words that feel like daggers to their throats. For instance, wrongly accusing someone of wanting to kill Jews might not be taken particularly well. Gillibrand is not only wrong on the merits of this dispute; she is wrong on the politics. Why is she spending her time hyperventilating about a phrase that Mamdani doesn't even use? Like it or not, Mamdani is going to be the Democratic nominee for Mayor of the City of New York. Does she really think it is in her political interest to alienate the hundreds of thousands of voters who support Mamdani? Maybe so given that she appears to primarily rely on the cryptocurrency industry for support rather than regular New Yorkers.