On the second anniversary of Hamas’s Oct. 7 massacre, the deadliest on Jews since the Holocaust, New York City should be standing firm against antisemitism. Instead, state assemblyman and mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani is calling to dismantle the city’s adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism.
This stance ignores why the city embraced IHRA in the first place—because antisemitism in America’s largest city, home to the largest Jewish community outside of Israel, has surged since Oct. 7 and Jewish New Yorkers need clear protections, not diluted commitments.
The IHRA definition is not an abstract document or a symbolic gesture. It is a practical tool that helps educators recognize antisemitism in schools, guides law enforcement in investigations and empowers community organizations to respond effectively. Without such clarity, the city risks leaving Jewish residents vulnerable and reactive rather than protected and proactive.
Now, Mamdani says that he would dismantle that adoption, framing it as an obstacle to political speech about Israel. This characterization is misleading and dangerous. The IHRA definition itself clearly states that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”
What the definition does do is acknowledge a fundamental truth: Contemporary antisemitism often hides in plain sight, thinly disguised as double standards, demonization or the denial of Jewish identity and peoplehood. Pretending otherwise does nothing to protect free speech, though it does embolden those who seek to harass, intimidate or attack Jewish residents.
And make no mistake, those attacks are real. From vandalized synagogues to physical assaults on the street, Jewish New Yorkers are facing threats that are escalating in frequency and severity.
As chief government affairs officer at the Combat Antisemitism Movement, I have witnessed the consequences when definitions and safeguards are ignored. I work with mayors, city councils and law enforcement across North America and the world, who understand that antisemitism is rarely an isolated threat. When it rises, it inevitably leads to the rise of other forms of hate. The safety of a Jewish resident walking to synagogue or wearing a Star of David is a barometer for the safety of every minority group in a city. Leaders who recognize this do not wait for a crisis to respond. They act pre-emptively, armed with clear policies and shared definitions.
Rolling back New York’s embrace of IHRA would send a message that progress can be reversed when it becomes politically inconvenient and suggest that the security of Jewish residents, and by extension all minorities, is up for debate.
Leadership requires moral clarity and consistency. New Yorkers deserve policies that protect their communities, frameworks that clarify what constitutes hate, and the assurance that the city’s leaders will not retreat in the face of rising threats. The Jewish community must hear more than rhetoric. Jewish New Yorkers deserve safety, clarity and accountability.
Some may argue that definitions like IHRA are symbolic or that dismantling them protects free speech. But this is a false dichotomy. New York City cannot protect expression by leaving a community vulnerable to harassment, intimidation and violence. Definitions matter because they guide real-world action by informing school policies, training law enforcement, shaping community response and sending a clear message to those who would seek to spread hate. Without them, words of sympathy after the fact are meaningless.
Standing firm is not just a moral imperative; it is a practical one. Because when New York defends its Jewish population, it defends all of its residents. When New York upholds a clear, actionable definition of antisemitism, it shows that hate will not be tolerated and that leadership is measured not by convenience, but by courage.
The stakes are high. New York’s Jews and the broader civic community cannot afford to see the city rescind protections against antisemitism.
As the mayoral race approaches, candidates and current leaders alike must recognize that fighting hate is not optional; it is essential. This is a moment for New York to show that it will not go backward, and that its commitment to countering antisemitism is unwavering. The city, still viewed by many as a global beacon for social tolerance and cohesion, cannot afford to falter now.
