Mamdani and those little town blues

(Originally published in The Times of Israel)

 “I stand by Italian-Americans.  I stand against anti-Italian-American statements and actions.  Italian-Americans will serve in my Administration.  I support the elimination of Italy.”

“I stand by Mexican-Americans.  I stand against anti-Mexican-American statements and actions. Mexican Americans will serve in my Administration. I am for the destruction of Mexico.”

“I stand by Nigerians.  I stand against anti-Nigerian-American statements and actions.  Nigerian-Americans will serve in my Administration.  I don’t think Nigerians have a right to their homeland.”

Pretty ludicrous statements.  They make no sense.  But this is exactly what the Mayor-elect of New York City,  Zohran Mamdani, says when it comes to Jewish Americans and their homeland.

“But,” many will say in his defense, “Zionism is not the same as Judaism.  You can be against Zionism and not be against Jews.”

Right on the first sentence.  Wrong on the second sentence.  For all but some outliers on the periphery, Zionism, the belief in  the existence of a Jewish nation in the Jews ancestral homeland, is an integral part of their Jewish identity.

When your position is that you are against the existence of the only Jewish-majority nation in the world; when you are for the destruction of the home of half of the 15 million Jews in the world; when you support denying Jews self-determination in the land in which they are an indigenous people; when you oppose the Jewish National Liberation Movement, it is impossible to “stand with the Jews,” to “stand against anti-Jewish American statements and actions.”

When you take that position, you are anti-Jew.  You are a Jew-hater.

You might not believe that you are anti-Jew, a Jew-hater.  But you don't get to decide.  Jews do. The fact that so many Americans, particularly Democrats and those that consider themselves liberal or progressive, endorsed or acquiesced in Mamdani being the Democratic nominee for mayor, and the fact that so many New Yorkers voted for him, simply evidences how Jew-hatred has insinuated itself into the American mainstream.

The post-Holocaust taboo on being an explicit Jew-hater is gone.  Don't believe it?  Just read the comments to any article in a mainstream paper or any on-line discussion about Israel or Jews.

“But,” some assert, “people voted on local issues. The vote wasn’t about Israel or Jews. People voted for him because of the cost of housing, on affordability.”

“People didn’t vote for him because he wants to destroy Ireland.  They voted for him because the cost of tomatoes is too high and they want government-owned supermarkets.”

“People didn’t vote for him because he wants to eliminate Guatemala. They voted for him because the cost of an apartment in Park Slope is ridiculous.”

“People didn’t vote for him because he wants to destroy the home of the Moroccan, or because he wants to “globalize” violence against Moroccans. They voted for him because they like the idea of free bus rides.”

Or “people voted for Mussolini because he got the trains running on time.”  Or “people supported Stalin because he was for free health care.” Or “people voted for George Wallace because he promised to lower the cost of groceries.”

It all sounds quite ludicrous—nuts—with any other ethnic or national group and their homeland. But somehow people think it is acceptable and doesn't sound nonsensical and ludicrous when it comes to Israel and Jews.

One could conclude that British comedian David Baddiel sums it up well with the tile of his book:  Jews Don't Count: How Identity Politics Failed One Particular Identity.

Mamdani hasn't made things better since his election.  In fact, he effectively encouraged  intimidation of and hateful actions against Jews.  Nefesh B'Nefesh, a group dedicated to supporting Jews who wish to move to Israel, was holding an informational event at the Park East Synagogue.  A group outside engaged in activities promoting violence, shouting “death to the I.D.F.” and “globalize the intifada”

While the New York Times predictably buried it at the bottom of a long article, the purpose was not protest.  One of the organizers publicly and explicitly stated the purpose: instilling fear and preventing future gatherings.

“'It is our duty to make them think twice before holding these events,” the speaker says. Then he repeats, three times: “We need to make them scared!”'

Mr. Mamdani's response? According to the Times, 'the next day, saying through a spokeswoman that he “discouraged the language” used at the protest and that New Yorkers must be “free to enter a house of worship without intimidation.'  Not exactly a full-throated condemnation.

Then Mamdani went onto essentially justify the "protest."  In classic Jew-hating mode, he blamed the victims:

He went onto say that Jews should not be using their synagogues "to promote activities in violation of international law.”

Sheer chutzpa.  Does the Mayor-elect plan on policing events in churches and mosques and opining on the discussions taking place and opinions being presented?  Is Mamdani characterizing Jews settling in Israel as a "violation of international law," i.e. that Israel's existence is illegal?  Many of the people at that protest, and many of his most ardent supporters, take that position, and they undoubtedly will interpret his remarks to be an endorsement of that view.

Or, was his sweeping justification meant only to apply to settlement outside the 1948 armistice lines?  If so, he gave no hint of that.  Nefesh B'Nefesh's event provided information on moving to Israel.  It did not take a position on where to settle.

Bottom line:  Why add the judgment on the event?  Nothing excuses the hate, intimidation, and support of violence against Jews that went on outside.  Why could the Mayor-elect, who will soon have one million Jewish constituents, not simply issue a robust, clear, unadorned  condemnation?

(A few day later, after the political fall-out, Mamdani tried to clean things up with a more unequivacal condemnation.  But, as we all know, first reactions are most often the real deal.)

The answer:  Because Mamdani is honest. This is part of Mamdani's core identity, and it appears that he intends to be true to his identity.  His belief in the elimination of the Jewish homeland, his hate for Jews, is a core part of his being.  It is not a sideline for him.

Even when Mamdani went to the White House for his somewhat bizarre lovefest with President Trump, a meeting the purpose of which was keeping billions of dollars flowing into New York and keeping thousands of U.S. military personnel out, Mamdani felt the need to tell the President that U.S. tax dollars should not support a non-existent Israeli "genocide."

President Trump, not a man known for staying true to fixed principles, did not contradict his guest.  Perhaps in a few weeks the President will do what he did after his dinner with neo-Nazi Nick Fuentes, i.e. claim that he had no idea who Mamdani was.  Nothing surprises me anymore.

It is not just politics for Mamdani. His resume is very thin.  Of what little experience he has,  much of it is dedicated to the destruction of the homeland of the Jews and opposition to those who believe in it.  It appears to have been pretty close to an obsession, as it appears to be with many of those who agree with him.

Will Mamdani be a successful mayor?  Will he successfully continue his attack on the Jewish people?  Will his views become mainstream in the Democratic Party?

Hard to know.  But, when it comes to New York, you know what they sing:

"You always make it there, you make it anywhere
It's up to you, New York, New York."