Uncategorized
When Standards Disappear: What the Mamdani Reversals Reveal About Jewish Political Vulnerability
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani delivers a speech during his inauguration ceremony in New York City, US, Jan. 1, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Kylie Cooper
When New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani took office, he pledged to “protect our Jewish neighbors.”
Within hours of taking power and very deliberately, he reversed two policies that many Jewish New Yorkers had reasonably understood as core safeguards: New York City’s adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism, and restrictions barring city officials from participating in boycotts or divestment campaigns against Israel.
The reversals were framed as an administrative reset — a clearing away of a prior administration’s preferences. But their effect was unmistakable. They removed explicit institutional commitments to defining and confronting contemporary antisemitism and to affirming Israel’s legitimacy within city governance.
The public reaction followed a familiar script: condemnation, statements, reassurances, and calls for calm.
What has been missing is a clear-eyed assessment of what this episode actually reveals and what it demands of the Jewish community going forward. This is not primarily a story about tone, intent, or interpersonal trust. It is a story about power, incentives, and institutional design.
As a professor of political science, nothing about this outcome is surprising. Decades of research reveal that democratic governance is often shaped less by stated intentions, than by incentive structures. Elected officials respond to organized pressure, coalition management, and political cost. Policies that are discretionary — rather than embedded in durable institutional constraints — are inherently vulnerable to reversal when political alignments shift. Goodwill is not a governing mechanism. Constraints are.
The IHRA definition mattered not because it resolved every possible case, but because it translated moral concern into an operational standard. It provided guidance to institutions tasked with distinguishing between legitimate political speech and discriminatory conduct. It constrained interpretive drift. It limited the ability of political actors to redefine antisemitism opportunistically when ideological pressure mounted.
Its removal did not merely alter language; it shifted authority. Decisions about what constitutes antisemitism were moved from a widely recognized framework into a discretionary space shaped by coalition politics.
This shift matters, especially because antisemitism today rarely presents itself in its older, easily recognizable forms. Contemporary antisemitism is more often expressed through the delegitimization of Jewish collective identity, through moral exceptionalism applied uniquely to Israel, or through the attribution of collective guilt to Jews as a people.
These forms of antisemitism are harder to name, precisely because they cloak themselves in the language of politics, justice, or critique. That is precisely why definitional clarity matters. Without agreed-upon standards, antisemitism becomes whatever the most powerful actors in the room say it is — and Jews are once again placed in the position of having to prove harm after it has already occurred.
In practice, the removal of IHRA has concrete downstream consequences. City agencies, educators, and law-enforcement officials are left without clear guidance. Complaints become harder to adjudicate. Incidents that previously would have been recognized as discriminatory risk being dismissed as mere political disagreement. Ambiguity does not produce neutrality; it produces inconsistency — and inconsistency predictably disadvantages minorities whose harms are already contested.
Supporters of the reversal argue that definitions like IHRA chill speech. This objection deserves to be addressed directly. Standards do not regulate speech; they guide institutional response once speech crosses into discrimination or harassment. That distinction is foundational to civil-rights law.
Universities, workplaces, and governments have long relied on definitions to enforce equal protection without policing opinion. The alternative to standards is not free expression; it is discretionary enforcement, which is far more susceptible to political bias.
To understand why this matters so deeply in New York, one must take seriously how urban politics actually work. The city is not a neutral forum adjudicating claims in the abstract. It is a competitive ecosystem of organized interests: labor unions, housing advocates, immigrant coalitions, civil-liberties groups, ethnic and religious communities, and pro- and anti-Israel movements, all pressing their claims. Groups that exert influence in this environment tend to be cohesive, disciplined, and capable of imposing consequences — electoral, reputational, or financial — when their core interests are ignored. Groups that rely primarily on access, symbolic recognition, or rhetorical reassurance tend to lose influence over time, even when their concerns are legitimate.
The Jewish community has encountered this structural problem before.
In the late 1960s and 1970s, formal Jewish quotas in elite universities were dismantled. Many Jewish leaders understandably celebrated what appeared to be the end of explicit discrimination. What replaced quotas, however, were “holistic admissions systems” that sounded neutral and humane — yet operated with enormous discretion.
Over time, and without enforceable constraints, Jewish representation declined in some institutions — not because of overt hostility, but because the rules no longer anchored Jewish inclusion in durable standards. Once discretion expanded, Jewish objections carried less weight.
This is not to claim that history repeats mechanically. The analogy is not that today’s New York mirrors yesterday’s campuses. It is that the same structural error — substituting discretion for durable standards — predictably produces vulnerability over time. When protections are treated as administrative preferences rather than institutional commitments, they become reversible.
What, then, should the New York Jewish community do?
First, it must reorient its strategy away from reassurance and toward institutionalization. Executive orders and informal commitments are inherently fragile. Jewish leaders should be pressing for protections embedded in municipal law, administrative code, and binding procedures that cannot be undone unilaterally by a single mayor. Standards that survive political turnover matter more than promises offered in moments of controversy.
Second, the community must move beyond consensus statements to coordinated escalation. Unity is valuable, but unity without consequences signals disappointment rather than resolve. Effective political actors develop escalation ladders: clear benchmarks for action, followed by predictable increases in pressure if those benchmarks are ignored. That means legislative engagement, legal review, donor accountability, voter mobilization, and sustained public argument — not episodically, but over time.
Third, Jewish leaders must be clear-eyed about coalition politics. Coalitions are not moral communities; they are transactional alignments. When interests diverge, coalitions realign. Coalitions that require Jews to accept weakened protections in exchange for continued inclusion are not partnerships; they are asymmetries. Participation in pluralistic civic life does not require surrendering the authority to define antisemitism or abandoning institutional safeguards that Jews have repeatedly said they need.
Fourth, the community should frame this issue not as a narrow Jewish concern, but as a rule-of-law problem with broader implications. A city that abandons clear standards for identifying and addressing bias weakens protections for all minorities. Discretion may feel humane in the short term, but it is precisely discretion that allows enforcement to be politicized when pressure mounts. Equal protection requires standards that do not fluctuate with ideology.
Finally, Jewish institutions must invest in long-term political capacity rather than episodic crisis management. This moment exposes a collective-action problem, not a moral failure. Influence is cumulative. It is built through persistence, clarity, organizational discipline, and a willingness to tolerate conflict when core protections are at stake.
This is not a moment for panic, but for sobriety. The lesson of the past weeks is not that Jewish concerns lack legitimacy, but that legitimacy must be secured through structure.
Protections that rely on tone, trust, or reassurance will fail under pressure; protections that are codified, enforced, and defended endure. For Jewish communal leaders in New York, the task is clear: stop treating safeguards as favors, stop confusing access with influence, and build constraints that survive political change. In democratic politics, what is not institutionalized does endure.
Samuel J. Abrams is a professor of politics at Sarah Lawrence College and a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
Uncategorized
Toronto synagogue hit by gunfire hours after Purim event
(JTA) — A Toronto synagogue was hit by gunfire late on Monday night, just hours after a Purim celebration was held there.
No injuries were reported in the shooting, according to police, which targeted Reform synagogue Temple Emanu-El at around 10:49 p.m. The event, which was billed as a “sing-along shpiel” and costume contest, had run until 9 p.m.
But Rabbi Debra Landsberg told reporters that she couldn’t sleep much Monday night: She was still inside the building when the shooting occurred, and could hear the gunshots.
“I’m a bit shaken up,” she said. “It is devastating that there are those in this society that want to shatter what we have here.”
Police did not confirm how many shell casings were found outside the building, but the synagogue wrote on Instagram that “20 shots were fired at our synagogue.”
“We are working closely with law enforcement and security partners,” the post read. “We remain united and resilient. Our building is damaged; our congregation is not. Chag sameach, everyone.”
The incident is being investigated by Toronto police’s hate crime unit, as well as the gun and gang task force; the suspect is currently unknown.
Police have upped their presence in Toronto’s Jewish neighborhoods since the war in Iran broke out on Saturday, as well as around houses of worship and other Jewish institutions, deputy chief Robert Johnson said in a press conference on Tuesday. Iranian agents have a record of targeting Jewish sites with gunshots and other disturbances, and Jewish security officials have urged vigilance since the war began.
When asked if there was any connection between the Temple Emanu-El attack and the war in Iran, Johnson said making that connection “would be speculation at this point.”
The shooting is the latest in a string of crimes targeting Jewish institutions and residents in Toronto. A Jewish girls’ elementary school was hit by gunfire three times in 2024 alone. This past December, mezuzahs were ripped from residents’ doorposts in multiple buildings, including a seniors’ residence. A month prior, police said a suspect had “damaged the outer glass windows” of Kehilath Shaarei Torah, a synagogue near Temple Emanu-El. (Police visited that synagogue while investigating the Temple Emanu-El shooting, which prompted false reports that both synagogues were attacked on Monday night.)
“This is the fourth time a Jewish institution has been targeted for gunfire in Toronto over the past two years, in addition to countless threats and acts of vandalism,” said Adam Minsky, president of UJA Federation of Greater Toronto, in a statement. “Every day, families across our community carry deep concerns for the safety of their children. But we are resilient and refuse to be intimidated. We will continue to proudly celebrate Jewish life.”
Noah Shack, CEO of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, said in a statement that incidents like this will “inevitably lead to much worse.”
“As we witnessed in Australia, when incitement goes unchecked and synagogues are threatened, we can expect to see mass violence and tragedies that could have been prevented,” Shack wrote.
So far this year, anti-Jewish hate crimes have made up 63% of all reported hate crimes in Toronto, according to Johnson, continuing a trend of increased antisemitic crimes since Oct. 7, 2023.
“These numbers are not abstract. They represent real people and real harm,” Johnson said. “Our commitment is clear: We are doing everything within our authority to protect Toronto’s Jewish community.”
Toronto Mayor Olivia Chow called the shooting “an unacceptable act of antisemitism and intimidation.”
She also alluded to the timing of the shooting, which came days after war broke out between Israel and the United States and Iran.
“As we have seen repeatedly, incidents increase across our city as international events unfold. I want to be clear: it is never acceptable to target faith communities or cultural groups,” Chow wrote.
Shack said the shooting took place “at a time when Iran’s Islamic regime poses a heightened threat to Jewish and Persian communities worldwide,” and urged authorities to “redouble measures to safeguard our country and all Canadians.”
Just one night before the Temple Emanu-El shooting, another shooting occurred at around 2:30 a.m. in Toronto. Nobody was injured, but police said there was “damage” to businesses in the area, including Old Avenue Restaurant, a restaurant owned by pro-Israel activist Esther Bakinka. The hate crime unit “is aware” of the investigation, according to police, but not leading it. Bakinka wrote on Facebook that the restaurant’s upcoming Purim celebration would be canceled due to “extenuating circumstances.”
Deputy mayor Mike Colle called Bakinka “a courageous fighter for protection of our Jewish Community,” and called for the creation of a joint task force to combat antisemitic violence, “especially now with the Middle East on fire.”
The post Toronto synagogue hit by gunfire hours after Purim event appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Trump rejects idea that Israel drew US into war with Iran: ‘If anything, I might have forced Israel’s hand’
(JTA) — President Donald Trump rejected claims that Israel had pulled the United States into the war with Iran on Tuesday, instead suggesting that he had “forced their hands.”
Trump’s comments came after Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters on Monday that the United States entered the conflict because officials “knew that there was going to be an Israeli action” and expected to become embroiled as a result. Rubio’s comments ignited questions about whether Trump was taking his cues from the Israelis.
“Based on the way the negotiation was going, I think they were going to attack first and I didn’t want that to happen,” Trump told reporters at the White House on Tuesday during a press conference with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. “So, if anything, I might have forced Israel’s hand, but Israel was ready and we were ready.”
The president’s claims appeared to contradict reports from the Pentagon to Congress on Sunday that there was no intelligence suggesting Iran planned to attack U.S. forces first.
“If we didn’t do what we’re doing right now, you would have had a nuclear war and they would have taken out many countries because you know what? They’re sick people,” Trump told reporters on Tuesday. “They’re mentally ill sick people. They’re angry, they’re crazy, they’re sick.”
While Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have denied suggestions that Israel steered the U.S. into the conflict, which has rapidly escalated tensions across the region, critics across the political spectrum have continued to question the extent to which the United States’ actions were influenced by Israel.
During the president’s meeting with Merz, the German leader told reporters that the two countries had a shared desire to get rid of the “terrible regime in Iran,” with Trump adding that Germany had allowed U.S. forces land in “certain areas,” though the U.S. was not asking Germany to provide troops.
The meeting followed a joint statement on Sunday by France, Germany and the United Kingdom in which the three countries vowed to “take steps to defend our interests and those of our allies in the region.”
While Republican lawmakers largely backed the joint U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran Saturday morning, rising American casualties and suggestions by Trump that he had not ruled out sending troops into Iran have spurred concern from some about the potential for a drawn-out conflict.
The post Trump rejects idea that Israel drew US into war with Iran: ‘If anything, I might have forced Israel’s hand’ appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Berlin groups received $3M to fight antisemitism. What happened to that money?
(JTA) — Germany’s leading party is being investigated in Berlin for funneling millions to groups that proposed fighting antisemitism but lacked transparency about their use of the funds — including one group whose director has been accused of antisemitic language herself.
The Berlin branch of the Christian Democratic Union, the center-right party leading the federal government, is being probed by a parliamentary committee for allegedly improperly allocating 2.6 million euros (about $3 million) to combat antisemitism. The party, the committee alleges, did not vet the groups adequately or monitor their spending.
The government allocated special funds toward fighting antisemitism at the end of 2023, shortly after the Oct. 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel that spurred a spike in antisemitic incidents in many places.
Among the grants triggering concern was 390,000 euros to the Zera Institute, founded in December 2024 by an Iranian-German music producer named Maral Salmassi. She has been accused of posting antisemitism rhetoric online.
In a post on X from February 2025, Salmassi said the Jewish billionaire George Soros “is and always has been a parasite.” Nazi-era propaganda frequently depicted Jews as parasites. Since the comment was resurfaced by Die Tageszeitung, Salmassi has deleted it and expressed regret.
Daniel Eliasson, a local Green Party politician, called the post a “clearly antisemitic statement” to a local newspaper. “As a Jew, I find it nothing short of a mockery that the Berlin CDU is providing this person with €390,000 to fight antisemitism,” he said.
Berlin’s antisemitism commissioner, Sigmount Königsberg, resigned from the expert council of the Zera Institute after the post came to light.
Salmassi has also referred to philosopher Omri Boehm, journalist Peter Beinart and scholars Amos Goldberg and Raz Segal — all staunch critics of Israel — as “token Jews.”
Salmassi is a CDU member who sits on a local board of the party. Several other funding recipients have been discovered to have ties to the party, and some have no verifiable experience in combating antisemitism, according to Stern magazine. They include a real estate company and other recently founded groups.
Staffers from the CDU’s Department for Culture and Social Cohesion, which was responsible for awarding the grants, testified at a parliamentary inquiry hearing on Friday. The investigation, initiated by the Left Party and the Greens, will determine whether funding was disbursed based on unclear criteria and cronyism.
During Friday’s hearing, one witness said “the expertise and the resources were lacking” for their department to handle the large sum of funds allocated in the wake of Oct. 7, according to Berliner Morgenpost. The next hearing is scheduled for Friday.
When Der Tagesspiegel contacted 12 organizations that received funding to implement projects in the 2025 fiscal year, only three gave answers about how they used or planned to use the funds. One of these projects organized an exhibition about Israel’s Nova music festival, a target of the Hamas attacks. Another group organized concerts, workshops and exhibitions to combat antisemitism in the music scene, and a third supported Israeli artists in Berlin.
Uffa Jensen, deputy director of the Center for Research on Antisemitism at the Berlin Institute of Technology, told Der Tagesspiegel that he was skeptical about where the 2.6 million euros would end up.
“Based on the selection of the funded projects, I have doubts as to whether it is effective or whether it will achieve the goals that the funds were intended to pursue,” said Jensen.
The post Berlin groups received $3M to fight antisemitism. What happened to that money? appeared first on The Forward.