NEW YORK, NEW YORK - OCTOBER 22: Democratic candidate Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani is seen before participating in a second New York City mayoral debate at LaGuardia Performing Arts Center at LaGuardia Community Colle... NEW YORK, NEW YORK - OCTOBER 22: Democratic candidate Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani is seen before participating in a second New York City mayoral debate at LaGuardia Performing Arts Center at LaGuardia Community College in Long Island City, Queens, on October 22, 2025 in New York City. With less than two weeks left until New Yorkers go to the polls, mayoral candidates are set to make their closing arguments in a final debate. (Photo by Hiroko Masuike-Pool/Getty Images) MORE LESS

In the last couple of weeks, the questions about Jews, Israel and Zohran Mamdani have rushed back into the news. It began with a dramatic speech from the pulpit from the rabbi of a prominent New York City synagogue, Elliot Cosgrove, and its been kept in the news by a public letter signed by 600 or so rabbis and cantors. I don’t know how much this has broken through into the mainstream press but it’s been on a loud speaker in Jewish communal publications. Cosgrove began his speech (you can call it a sermon if you want) saying he believes “Zohran Mamdani poses a danger to the security of the New York Jewish community” and a “danger to the Jewish body politic of New York City.” The public letter hit similar points and is generally the same message.

I don’t have anything unique or new to add but since I’ve written here and there over the last two years about Israel and Jews and Gaza, as well as once or twice about Mamdani, I thought I should share my opinion. More specifically, a growing number of TPM Readers have asked me to address these accusations, either from the perspective of agreeing with them or wanting me to denounce them.

So with that introduction out of the way, these claims not only strike me as wrong but as borderline absurd. Like absurd as in, What the fuck are we talking about? absurd. And I say this notwithstanding the fact that I disagree with Mamdani on numerous points tied to Zionism and Israel.

He claims that what happened in Gaza is a genocide. He has strong ties to Jewish Voices for Peace, a group whose leadership espouses and endorses many things I find beyond the pale. JVP is quite different from pro-peace groups like If Not Now and JStreet, both of which I’ve supported and in one case had a very small role in advising and helping in the past. In general I don’t think Mamdani sees the totality of Jewish history and how it intersects with Zionism.

But none of that is what this election is about or what governing New York City is about.

More importantly, none of this changes the fact that I have watched Mamdani closely over many months and I see zero evidence that he holds any animus toward Jews or is antisemitic in any way. I never thought he had any such hostility. And everything I’ve seen since the spring has deepened that conviction. I think he is committed to combating the very real upsurge of antisemitism in this country, which is caused by the twin forces of Trumpite radicalism and the more extreme/radical factions of the pro-Palestinian politics in the U.S. Of course that applies specifically to New York City with a program he’s laid out and discussed at great length. Viktor Kovner, a member of the JStreet board of directors, sets out his argument along these same lines in The Forward in a way that is more grounded and knowledgable than I’m able to present (“Jews are worried about Zohran Mamdani. Here’s why they shouldn’t be.”) I recommend it.

On the actual substance of Mamdani’s campaign, which has virtually nothing to do with the Middle East but is focused on cost of living in the city, I don’t know how much of it he will be able to achieve. But to the extent I have any doubts about the feasibility of specific policy ideas, what the times call for is experimentation. The situation the country is in is sufficiently dire that if you’re not trying out some new ideas that might not pan out, you’re not being creative enough, you’re not searching hard enough for the game-changing reformism of the future. If you can’t experiment with new policy ideas at the municipal level, where possibly can you?

I see a lot of lo-fi opposition to Mamdani saying things like, Well, his ideas sound great but where will he get the money? Or, It can’t possibly work! But there’s almost never any policy explanation for why this is the case. You could very easily make all public transportation in the city free if you wanted to. Just fund it out of general revenue. There’s nothing complicated about that. It’s just a policy decision. If states are meant to be the laboratories of democracy, cities should be its DIY workshops. We must experiment boldly and with an open and not an ideologically hidebound mind because public confidence in the power of government to positively affect society is at an all-time low and all the most important metrics of civic well being are going in the wrong direction.

Considering my own thoughts, I’m probably more pumped about Mamdani and his candidacy than this post suggests. I see his campaign videos. I like him. I want him to succeed. I gave a decent amount of focus here to my real disagreements with him first just because that’s the truth but even more because I want to be clear that I find these accusations wrong and borderline absurd even with these very real disagreements.

I would be remiss if I didn’t make one final point. The principle danger faced by Jews both in the U.S. generally and in New York City specifically is the imposition of fascist autocracy from the White House. Set aside whatever you think about Andrew Cuomo as governor during COVID or accusations of sexual harassment against him. In his effort to make inroads against Mamdani, Cuomo has increasingly allied himself with the MAGA movement and a president who is itching to unleash his lawless paramilitaries on the city. Trump is treating blue states and cities as conquered territory and trying to steal the republican self-government the federal Constitution guarantees them. That is the threat. And even if what I discussed above were a closer call (it’s really not), that would settle the question.

Did you enjoy this article?

Join TPM and get The Backchannel member newsletter along with unlimited access to all TPM articles and member features.

This article was gifted by a TPM member

Join TPM and get The Backchannel member newsletter along with unlimited access to all TPM articles and member features

JOIN
Already a member? Sign In
Already a member? Sign In
This article was gifted by a TPM member