The early actions of newly elected New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani have heightened fears that protections against antisemitism are being weakened as hostility toward Jews escalates. New York City is home to the largest Jewish population outside of Israel.
In his first days in office, Mamdani reversed key policies to protect Jewish communities from antisemitism. He revoked executive orders that adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism, restricted city engagement with the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel and provided guidance to the New York City Police Department on handling protests near houses of worship. The new mayor’s actions struck down clear standards and safeguards at a moment of rising anti-Jewish hostility.
Mamdani’s team also deleted social-media posts on combating antisemitism, posted by the previous mayor, from the official mayor’s account, erasing public commitments to confronting anti-Jewish hate and raising questions about legality and transparency.
The mayor publicly stated that the Mayor’s Office to Combat Antisemitism will remain in place. However, its current director, Rabbi Moshe Davis, reported that he had not heard from the mayor’s staff and city officials declined to clarify its status. The absence of engagement or guidance fueled concerns about the status of the office going forward.
Mamdani also appointed a new chief counsel who previously coached hardline anti-Israel protesters and defended an Al-Qaeda terrorist in court. At least 20% of the mayor’s appointees have ties to anti-Zionist groups.
Extremist allies and authoritarian sympathies
Mamdani’s student and political activism have drawn support from activist groups and movements that promote aggressive anti-American and anti-Israel activity. This includes the Democratic Socialists of America, his political party.
When Venezuelans and their diaspora communities in the United States, the United Kingdom and other countries were cheering the recent removal of the country’s authoritarian dictator from power, the Democratic Socialists of America demanded his release and declared: “Solidarity with the Bolivarian Revolution!” The same activists who claim to champion human rights defended a brutal regime responsible for repression and suffering.
Anti-Zionism equals antisemitism
The IHRA definition of antisemitism is widely used by governments around the world to identify incidents of anti-Jewish hatred as they arise. It exists because modern antisemitism increasingly disguises itself as political activism.
The definition is used by the U.S. State Department, federal agencies, state and local governments, and colleges and universities as a practical tool for recognizing patterns of Jew-hatred. It is the most widely accepted framework used by Jewish communities and democratic governments worldwide.
Under IHRA, antisemitism includes not only hostility toward Jews as individuals, but also forms of anti-Zionism:
- Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination;
- Applying double standards not applied to any other democratic nation;
- Invoking Nazi comparisons to characterize Israel or Israelis;
- Holding Jews collectively responsible for the actions of Israel.
Governments and organizations rely on this definition because these acts have been repeatedly used to justify real-world targeting of Jews and Jewish institutions. The shooting massacre of 15 people on Dec. 14, the first night of Chanukah, on Bondi Beach in Australia, highlighted this pattern.
Mamdani has publicly supported the BDS movement against Israel and aligned with anti-America and anti-Israel activist groups, whose rhetoric and tactics meet multiple IHRA criteria. By revoking IHRA’s use in New York City, Mamdani removed the standard that identifies and limits this conduct.
The antisemitism definition draws a clear and necessary line where political claims become collective discrimination against Jews based on national origin, religion or false accusations. When that line is crossed, the harm is no longer theoretical; it is lived by Jewish communities. IHRA makes clear that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”
From rhetoric to reality: When anti-Zionism targets Jews
Anti-Western activists have repeatedly protested outside Jewish houses of worship and community events, chanting slogans that promote violence against Jews, such as “Globalize the intifada,” under the guise of targeting “Zionists.” These demonstrations have disrupted worship and endangered Jewish families, including children.
They intentionally use the term “Zionist” as a stand-in for Jews to avoid being labeled as antisemites. Zionism is a core component of Jewish identity, religious practice and peoplehood. Jewish prayer, worship and rituals center on Jerusalem, Jewish holidays commemorate returning to Israel and Zionism reflects Jewish self-determination. Targeting “Zionists” in Jewish spaces is the equivalent of targeting Jews.
Points to consider:
1. Rolling back protections emboldens those who target Jews.
When city leaders remove clear standards and enforcement tools, extremists take notice. New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s decision to revoke the use of the IHRA working definition of antisemitism and weaken guidance around protests at synagogues stripped away constraints that extremist groups have repeatedly tested. History shows that ambiguity does not calm tensions; it emboldens those already pushing boundaries through intimidation and disruption.
2. Leaders who weaken safeguards invite escalation.
Political leaders set the ceiling for acceptable conduct. By reversing antisemitism safeguards, Mamdani lowered that ceiling at a volatile moment. Activist groups that surround synagogues and disrupt Jewish events see the removal of legal guardrails as a license to commit violence. Escalation follows a familiar pattern: provocation increases, confrontations intensify and the risk of violence grows. Jewish history makes clear where that path leads, and it never ends with the Jews.
3. Political ideology is being prioritized above Jewish safety.
Political movements increasingly treat safety for the Jewish community as collateral damage in pursuit of anti-Israel agendas. When government officials align with anti-Israel activists, they send a clear message that Jewish safety is at the bottom of the list. These leaders and appointed government officials reshape policy, policing and the everyday security of Jewish life.
4. When anti-Zionism goes unchecked, Jews pay the price.
Language that denies Jewish legitimacy does not stay theoretical for long. Activists who frame Zionism as uniquely evil have repeatedly translated that rhetoric into harassment, vandalism and violence against Jews far removed from any policy debate. When this ideology is tolerated or excused, it functions as a license for targeting Jewish communities. The costs are measured in fear, disruption and, increasingly, bloodshed.
5. Failure to act now normalizes anti-Jewish hostility.
Each moment of silence from level-headed officials and institutions gives permission to hostile actors. When intimidation, harassment and disruption are met with silence, they start becoming more acceptable. That normalization is not accidental. History shows that once anti-Jewish hostility is treated as tolerable, reversing the damage becomes harder and with higher stakes.
