NYC’s newly sworn-in mayor, Zohran Mamdani, triggered controversy within hours of taking office. His decision to revoke key executive orders related to Israel and antisemitism drew sharp criticism from Israel’s leadership, which accused him of encouraging antisemitism.
Israel’s Foreign Ministry said his actions amounted to ‘antisemitic gasoline on an open fire’, a phrase shared widely on social media and diplomatic channels. Critics in Israel and some Jewish community leaders argue that reversing those policies weakens the tools used to define and fight antisemitism.Â
Zohran Mamdani Accused of Antisemitism by Israel
Israel’s accusation is not based on a single statement by Mamdani. It is rooted in concern that his actions signal a broader rejection of how antisemitism is currently defined and addressed in Western institutions.
Israeli officials argue that rolling back these executive orders sends a message that criticism of Israel can cross into antisemitism without clear consequences. They see this as especially dangerous at a time when antisemitic incidents are rising globally.
From Israel’s perspective, New York City holds symbolic weight. It is home to one of the largest Jewish populations outside Israel and often sets policy trends for other cities.
Why Israel Accused Zohran Mamdani of Antisemitism?
The accusation centres on the belief that Mamdani dismantled safeguards designed to clearly identify antisemitism, particularly when it appears in political language about Israel.
Israel and many Jewish organisations support the idea that some forms of anti-Israel rhetoric overlap with antisemitic stereotypes. They fear that removing official frameworks creates ambiguity, making it harder to act against hate speech.
In simple terms, Israel sees Zohran Mamdani’s decision as removing guardrails rather than promoting neutrality.
What Triggered the Accusations of Antisemitism?
The trigger was the revocation of two executive orders that had been in place under the previous mayor. These orders did not create new laws but guided how city agencies interpreted antisemitism and foreign-policy-linked activism.
Zohran Mamdani revoked both orders early in his term. That timing suggested intent rather than oversight, which intensified the reaction.
What Were the 2 Executive Orders Revoked by Zohran Mamdani?
IHRA Definition of Antisemitism
The first executive order formally adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism for use across city agencies. This definition includes examples where criticism of Israel may be considered antisemitic, such as denying Israel’s right to exist or applying double standards.
Supporters say the definition helps institutions identify modern forms of antisemitism. Critics argue it can blur the line between hatred and political criticism. By revoking this order, Mamdani removed the IHRA definition as the city’s official reference point.
Restrictions on Israel Boycotts
The second order restricted city agencies from engaging in or supporting boycotts and divestment actions targeting Israel. Such measures were intended to block city-level support for the global Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement.
Zohran Mamdani’s revocation lifted those restrictions, allowing city agencies more freedom in how they approach Israel-linked economic or institutional decisions.
Zohran Mamdani Response & Defense
Mamdani has firmly denied being antisemitic. He has said that opposing certain Israeli government policies does not equal hostility toward Jewish people. His defense rests on three points:
- Existing anti-discrimination laws already protect Jewish communities
- Free speech includes the right to criticise governments
- Definitions of hate should not suppress political debate
He has emphasised that his administration remains committed to fighting antisemitism, Islamophobia, and all forms of hate.
Why the Controversy Has Broader Political Consequences
The dispute surrounding Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s actions is not confined to New York’s local politics. It reflects a deeper global struggle over how antisemitism is defined, applied, and contested in public life.
As governments and institutions grapple with rising hate crimes alongside growing criticism of Israel’s policies, the line between protection and political expression has become increasingly blurred.
