Mamdani’s victory is an opportunity for Jews to relearn the art of disagreement
New Yorkers voted for affordability, not criticism of Israel. But American Jews can still learn from this election.
Zohran Mamdani, New York City mayoral candidate, during an election night event in New York June 25. Photo by Getty Images
Contributing Columnist Jay Michaelson June 25, 2025
Zohran Mamdani’s victory in New York’s Democratic mayoral primary is indeed historic. But it is not what his critics, including those in the Jewish community, say that it is.
First, Mamdani is not antisemitic. Not only is there no evidence that he is, Mamdani has, in recent days, made several moving statements condemning antisemitism unequivocally, including on Late Night with Stephen Colbert and at an ad-hoc press conference on a New York City street. And from Comptroller Brad Lander to my friends who canvassed all over Brooklyn on Mamdani’s behalf, his campaign has attracted Jewish New Yorkers of all types.
Let’s sit with that last point for a moment. Those who are sure that Mamdani is a bigot — what do you make of the tens of thousands of New York Jews (according to exit polls) who voted for him? Are they all self-deluded, self-hating, or worse? Have they sacrificed their Jewish birthright for a bowl of progressive porridge? Or is it possible that they just see things differently from you?
To be sure, Mamdani is a harsh critic of Israel. Again on Colbert the other night, he affirmed Israel’s right to exist. But from his college activism to his statements over the last two years, there is no doubt that he stands in solidarity with his fellow Muslims in Gaza, and with Palestinians in general. Personally, I find his “explanation” of the incendiary phrase “globalize the intifada” to be irresponsible and reckless.
But maybe Mamdani’s victory offers the Jewish community an opportunity to remember one of our oldest values: the importance of disagreement. A machloket l’shem shamayim, a dispute that is “for the sake of heaven,” i.e. in the name of sincere and ethical values, is not a bug in the system of society. According to the Talmud, it is an important feature of how societies thrive.
For nearly two years, loud and billionaire-funded voices in the Jewish community have insisted that harsh criticism of Israel — including not only anti-Zionism but, as my own recent experiences have illustrated, criticisms lodged by Zionists as well — is antisemitic. This despite the large-scale presence of Jews among Israel’s harshest critics, and despite the facts that such criticisms are based upon.
But this has never been true. Yes, anti-Israel actions and statements can sometimes be antisemitic: When Jews are attacked (physically, verbally, or in any other way) because of Israel’s perceived misdeeds, for example, or when antisemitic language is used to describe Israel’s actions. When such incidents occur, it is incumbent on all critics of Israel to condemn them — which they have often failed to do.
But alleging that the Israeli government has committed war crimes (as a recent New York magazine cover story just did, supported by devastating evidence), or claiming that settlements are a violation of international law, or even using high-wattage buzzwords like ‘genocide’ and ‘apartheid’ — we may disagree strongly with such words, but they are political speech, not hate speech, however disagreeable or wrongheaded we may believe such words to be. Political speech can offend, disturb, and even frighten us without it being antisemitic.
More and more people understand this. Despite mountains of money spent on Cuomo’s behalf, a majority of New York Democrats were not swayed by his avalanche of negative ads accusing Mamdani of antisemitism. By now, such accusations are like the boy who cried wolf; they’ve been so overused that people don’t believe them anymore.
But the overuse of the antisemitism accusation isn’t just inaccurate and unpersuasive; it’s hurting the American Jewish soul.
Can we at last get ahold of ourselves again? Of course, there are understandable psychological reasons for why we might feel threatened by anti-Israel speech, from longstanding intergenerational trauma to more recent failures of institutions to keep Jews safe from antisemitic violence and intimidation. But feeling threatened does not mean we are being threatened.
We have to exhale, for our own good. We have to look at evidence, not trust our instinctual responses to perceived threats. We have got to do better than this. My hope is that the probable mayoralty of a former Students for Justice in Palestine activist can be an opportunity for us to learn how to disagree again.
Second, while for many Jews, Mamdani is defined by his criticism of Israel, this is not why he was elected. Ironically, Mamdani’s core messaging was, in many ways, similar to Donald Trump’s: affordability, the price of groceries, the price of housing.
Unlike Trump, Mamdani has proposals for these issues that might actually work, if he’s able to get them through. (I’m hopeful that Lander, an experienced, veteran progressive who knows how to get things done, will play a significant role in any Mamdani administration.) And of course, Mamdani doesn’t scapegoat the vulnerable. But Mamdani won for the same reasons Trump won: kitchen table issues that affect people’s lives.
Of course, no election result is that simple. Obviously, Mamdani’s pro-Palestine activism resonated with many young progressives, and with many Muslims as well. And there were other core issues, like public safety, in which Mamdani, for the first time I can recall, successfully reframed progressive policing policies in terms of safety and security. But the main tagline was always “Affordability.”
This, I hope, might bring some comfort to those concerned that such a harsh critic of Israel (even if not an antisemitic one) could win a Democratic primary in New York City. It just wasn’t the main issue he ran on, or that voters cared about.
To be sure, many unanswered questions remain. Will Andrew Cuomo run in the general election, which he could conceivably win? If Mamdani becomes mayor, can he pass and fund the initiatives he’s talked about? Does Mamdani’s team have the experience to make him a successful mayor, unlike mostly failed progressives like Bill de Blasio and David Dinkins? Will the socialist Mamdani be bad for the national Democratic “brand” or good for it? And what happens if Jewish and Black communities, or Jewish and Muslim ones, once again find themselves in conflict?
No one can answer these questions. But for a moment, let’s inhabit the hearts and minds of Mamdani’s many young supporters — some of whom are close friends of mine. After a crushing defeat in 2024, this victory is like a dream come true for them. A true progressive, funded by small, grassroots donations, defeated a corrupt establishment politician who was mostly funded by two billionaires. As American democracy is threatened like never before, this election gives us hope that it can still work. And rebellions are built on hope.
