In one of the scariest moments in modern history, we're doing our best at ScheerPost to pierce the fog of lies that conceal it but we need some help to pay our writers and staff. Please consider a tax-deductible donation.
By Joshua Scheer
In an extraordinary opening salvo against New York City’s newly elected mayor, Zohran Mamdani, the government of Israel joined major U.S. Jewish organizations in accusing him of antisemitism following his first official actions in office.
On his first day as mayor, Mamdani rescinded two executive orders issued by his predecessor, Eric Adams. One barred city agencies from participating in boycotts of Israel; the other adopted an expanded definition of antisemitism that equates some criticism of Israel with hatred of Jews.
The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs swiftly condemned Mamdani’s decision. On social media, the ministry said: “Mamdani shows his true face: He scraps the IHRA definition of antisemitism and lifts restrictions on boycotting Israel. This isn’t leadership. It’s antisemitic gasoline on an open fire.” and said his actions threatened the safety of Jewish communities in New York City. Israel’s consul general in New York echoed that assessment, warning of a potential rise in violent antisemitic attacks — a claim made without factual basis.
The denunciation was joined by a coalition of prominent Jewish organizations, including the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee, and the UJA Federation of New York. Their joint statement framed the rescinded orders as “protections against antisemitism” and said singling out Israel for sanctions would undermine Jewish safety.
Yet this narrative collapses under scrutiny. Mamdani did not abolish anti-Jewish hate crime protections; he restored the longstanding civil-rights understanding of antisemitism — hatred against Jews as Jews, not criticism of the policies of the Israeli government. Likewise, he revoked all of Adams’s executive orders issued after the former mayor’s indictment, not only the two that touched on Israel. The selective focus on those two orders suggests a political, not principled, critique.
What triggered this institutional uproar is not hostility toward Jews, but Mamdani’s refusal to affirm Israel as an ethnically exclusive Jewish state and his support for equal rights for all people living in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. That position places him at odds with powerful pro-Israel networks in the U.S., who have increasingly conflated political criticism of Israeli policy with prejudice against Jews.
However, the new mayor made clear that his administration will aggressively combat hate speech and provide meaningful protection against hate-based violence.
“My administration will be marked by a city government that is relentless in its efforts to combat hate and division,” Mamdani said. “We will fight hate across the city, including the scourge of antisemitism, by funding hate-crime prevention, by celebrating our neighbors, and by practicing a politics of universality.
“When it comes to the IHRA definition you asked about, protecting Jewish New Yorkers will be a focus of my administration. I also recognize that many leading Jewish organizations have serious concerns about that definition. What we will do is deliver on our commitment to protect Jewish New Yorkers in a way that actually fulfills that promise.”
This campaign of accusation is not limited to Muslim figures. Prominent Jewish politicians and a growing cohort of younger American Jews — including many Democrats — share Mamdani’s views, yet are often labeled with the same pejorative terms when they dissent from mainstream pro-Israel positions.
Even mainstream media have contributed to the framing. The New York Times prominently covered the revocations, but focused narrowly on the Israel-related orders while ignoring the broader context of the mayor’s comprehensive rollback of Adams’s late-term executive actions.
The result has been a wave of incitement that blurs the line between legitimate political disagreement and bigotry. Whether these accusations stick or fade, they mark a turning point in how political criticism of Israel is policed in American public life — and how power is wielded by governments and advocacy groups alike.
Mamdani’s refusal to back down signals not only his political philosophy, but a broader debate over free speech, democratic governance, and the boundaries of legitimate protest. As this controversy unfolds, it raises urgent questions about how public discourse on foreign policy and civil rights will be navigated in the years ahead.
This reaction is not entirely uncommon. Many of these groups find themselves on what is effectively the losing side of a broader political and cultural shift, and they appear unable—or unwilling—to grapple with how that change has come about.
Mainstream media outlets have compounded this dynamic. CBS, and especially The New York Times, have published coverage that critics say is heavily skewed, portraying a mayor who had been in office for only a matter of hours as a cause for concern for all Jewish New Yorkers. On CBS, Dr. Asaf Romirowsky, executive director of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East (SPME), argued that the issue extends far beyond local politics.
“To my mind, anybody who cares about American culture, American society, Western society should be deeply concerned,” Romirowsky said. “Because antisemitism is not only against Jews—it’s part of an anti-Western, anti-American ideology that New York is now embracing under the leadership of Mamdani.”
Yet lets note the contradiction in invoking “peace” while opposing the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which is widely understood as a nonviolent strategy for challenging what many human rights organizations describe as an apartheid system—similar to the global boycott movement used against South Africa in the 1980s.
As journalist Katie Halper observed recently on her show, The Katie Halper Show, Jewish opposition to Israeli state policies may actually serve as a safeguard against antisemitism rather than a catalyst for it.
“The irony is that we’re the only hope for Jews,” Halper said. “If antisemitism is on the rise and people explain it away by saying Jews are simply victims of hate, that’s not the whole story. As Israel commits a live-streamed genocide, the more Jews speak out, the safer we are. The harder it is for antisemites to claim that all Jews support Israel, the safer Jews become. That’s not why I do this primarily, but it is a byproduct.”
These are two strong reports from MJ Rosenberg, whose biography reads: “Decades on Capitol Hill. Progressive. Former AIPAC employee. Former Zionist. Now fully committed to a one-state solution for all people in Israel/Palestine—equal rights, no state religion, and an end to AIPAC’s influence.”
MJ Rosenberg breaks the issue down in even greater detail in two pieces, “Times Hits Mamdani for Imaginary Antisemitic Acts on Day One” and “UNPRECEDENTED: Israel Joins Jewish Orgs in Inciting Against Mamdani.” In the latter, Rosenberg describes what he sees as a campaign of incitement, arguing that Israel—what he sharply characterizes as “the world’s champion antisemitism factory”—has labeled the mayor an antisemite for political reasons.
Rosenberg also highlights what he views as a failure of The New York Times to responsibly cover the issue, criticizing both its framing and its headline. As he writes, the paper once again demonstrated what he calls “Israel derangement syndrome.”
“On page one they ran this,” Rosenberg notes: ‘Mamdani Revokes Executive Orders That Adams Signed to Support Israel.’
According to Rosenberg, that headline obscures the broader context of Mamdani’s actions and reinforces a misleading narrative that centers Israel while minimizing the mayor’s wider administrative and democratic rationale.
MJ Rosenberg breaks the issue down in even greater detail in two pieces, “Times Hits Mamdani for Imaginary Antisemitic Acts on Day One” and “UNPRECEDENTED: Israel Joins Jewish Orgs in Inciting Against Mamdani.” In the latter, Rosenberg describes what he sees as a campaign of incitement, arguing that Israel—what he sharply characterizes as “the world’s champion antisemitism factory”—has labeled the mayor an antisemite for political reasons. Rosenberg also highlights what he views as a failure of The New York Times to responsibly cover the issue, criticizing both its framing and its headline. As he writes, the paper once again demonstrated what he calls “Israel derangement syndrome.” “On page one they ran this,” Rosenberg notes: ‘Mamdani Revokes Executive Orders That Adams Signed to Support Israel.’ According to Rosenberg, that headline obscures the broader context of Mamdani’s actions and reinforces a misleading narrative that centers Israel while minimizing the mayor’s wider administrative and democratic rationale.At the end of the day, these reactions reveal people’s true colors. Many are frustrated that their hand-picked retread candidate, Andrew Cuomo, failed to deliver. Instead, New York now has a new mayor—and four full years ahead. Mamdani has made clear that he stands firmly against hate, supports anti-hate legislation, and intends to represent all New Yorkers.
For AIPAC and its allies, the reality is simple: Israel is not New York City. And contrary to what Dr. Asaf Romirowsky suggested, American culture is built on questioning power and striving to be a voice for everyone. That is precisely the principle the mayor has articulated consistently.
We have four years ahead. Let’s give him more than four hours.
Editor’s Note: At a moment when the once vaunted model of responsible journalism is overwhelmingly the play thing of self-serving billionaires and their corporate scribes, alternatives of integrity are desperately needed, and ScheerPost is one of them. Please support our independent journalism by contributing to our online donation platform, Network for Good, or send a check to our new PO Box. We can’t thank you enough, and promise to keep bringing you this kind of vital news.
You can also make a donation to our PayPal or subscribe to our Patreon.