Writing the Waves

In recent weeks, I’ve received many thoughtful questions about the open letter I signed—along with more than a thousand of my rabbinic colleagues—raising concerns about the potential election of Zohran Mamdani as mayor of New York City.

There are of course concerns regarding the mixing of religion and politics. I understand that, and in my career I have rarely strayed. I have always felt. It is my duty to speak out on political issues, but to refrain from commenting on political figures. Especially those in the midst of an election. But as they say, there are moments that arise, when the exception proves the rule. For me, and I believe I speak on behalf of many of my colleagues, this is not about partisanship or about silencing dissent. It is about responsibility, language, and the safety of the Jewish people.

1. The Problem Is Not Policy—It’s Irresponsibility
I don’t know whether Mamdani himself harbors antisemitic intent. What I do know is that he has consistently used language, imagery, and political framing that traffic in anti- Jewish and anti-Israel tropes—tropes that have real-world consequences.

Even if his goal is to advocate for the Palestinian cause, the rhetoric he employs has opened the door to antisemitic fervor, normalizing a worldview that paints Jews and Israel as the root of oppression everywhere. That’s not leadership—it’s recklessness.

Responsible leaders understand that words carry history. They choose them carefully because they know words can inspire hope—or violence.

2. “Intifada” and the Power of Words
When a politician calls to “globalize the Intifada,” we must ask what that means in practice. The term Intifada is not neutral. Since at least 1989, it has meant violent uprising—one that took the lives of over a thousand Israelis, most of them civilians.

Some now claim the term simply means “shaking off oppression.” But that’s a distortion. Words have meaning because of lived history, not etymology. A responsible leader would say, “How will using this word help bring peace? How will it affect my Jewish
neighbors who have seen it associated only with terror and murder?”

When leaders use inflammatory language and then hide behind semantics, they
abdicate moral responsibility.

3. “From the River to the Sea” and the Myth of Inclusivity
We’ve also heard defenders insist that the chant “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” is merely a call for equality. Yet if that were true, why does the slogan erase Israel entirely? Why is it “Palestine” and not “Israel”?

In Arabic, the phrase originates from Hamas, which explicitly declares: “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be Arab.” That’s not a vision of shared freedom—it’s a call for elimination.

Meanwhile, Israel—imperfect as it is—remains the only nation in the region with legal protections for all citizens, regardless of ethnicity or faith. To single it out as uniquely illegitimate, while ignoring the entrenched discrimination of its neighbors, is not justice. It’s bias.

4. Historical Context Matters
Critics often point to the displacement of Palestinians in 1948 while ignoring the expulsion of nearly 900,000 Jews from Arab lands in the same period—Jews who were forced to flee the only homes their families had known for millennia.

Unlike the Palestinians, who have been encouraged to cling to refugee status for generations, these Jews resettled in Israel and rebuilt their lives. That history matters. It reveals that the conflict is not as simple as colonizer versus colonized—it’s far more
complex and tragic than that.

5. The Accusation of Genocide
The casual accusation that Israel is committing genocide is not only false—it’s dangerous. Genocide, by definition, requires the intent to eradicate a people. Yet the Palestinian population has grown fivefold since 1948.

There is no question that war brings horror, that mistakes are made, and that innocent lives are lost. But equating that tragedy with genocide distorts both history and morality. It also aligns, intentionally or not, with Hamas’s strategy—to provoke Israel into defending itself, ensuring Palestinian deaths that can then be used as propaganda.

This isn’t conjecture; it’s the documented plan of Hamas’s own leaders.

6. When Anti-Zionism Becomes Antisemitism
In the wake of October 7th, a chilling new narrative took hold on parts of the political left: that Jews are complicit in colonialism, that to be Zionist is to be oppressive.

But Zionism is, in truth, the most decolonial project in modern history—the return of an exiled people to their ancestral homeland, speaking their ancient language, reviving their culture, and building a nation not as conquerors but as survivors.

To deny the Jewish people that right, while affirming it for every other group, is antisemitism in disguise.

7. The Real Danger

What finally compelled me to write and share this blog with you was hearing Mamdani declare (in a video recording of a panel at the 2023 Democratic Socialists of America National Convention):

“When the boot of the NYPD is on your neck, it was laced up by the IDF.”

That statement is pure conspiracy. It echoes the antisemitic libel that Jews secretly control systems of power—that the suffering of others is somehow orchestrated by Israel.

This is not progressivism. It is a modern retelling of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. It is dangerous. And it makes our communities less safe.

But what’s even more unsettling is that for Mamdani, this isn’t accidental — it’s strategic. He has said that to awaken people to the struggles of the poor and disenfranchised, one must use international stories to illuminate local injustices. In other words, attacking Israel in the press isn’t a moral stand; it’s a tactic. It draws attention, fuels outrage, and amplifies his message. So, is Mamdani an antisemite, or simply someone willing to exploit antisemitism for political gain? In the end, the distinction hardly matters. The impact is the same — it spreads hatred and endangers Jews.\

8. In Hope of Raising the Debate
I did not sign that letter to silence debate. I signed it to raise its quality.

We can disagree passionately about Israeli policy, about Zionism, about the future of the Middle East. But when rhetoric crosses into demonization, when it blames Jews for society’s ills, when it recycles old lies in new clothing—it becomes our duty to speak.

That is why I signed. Not out of fear, but out of hope that honesty, context, and moral clarity can still guide public conversation.