Uncategorized
How Zohran Mamdani’s Ambiguous Words Echo in the Digital Sphere
Candidate Zohran Mamdani speaks during a Democratic New York City mayoral primary debate, June 4, 2025, in New York, US. Photo: Yuki Iwamura/Pool via REUTERS
When politicians speak out about Israel, antisemitism, or the Holocaust, what they omit can matter as much as what they say. In the digital arena, where nuance collapses within seconds, ambiguity often becomes ammunition.
The case of New York politician Zohran Mamdani, a progressive rising star who will likely become the mayor of New York City, illustrates this dynamic vividly. His statements about Israel, antisemitism, and the war in Gaza have sparked heated debate — not only for their content, but for the way strategic ambiguity allows them to be interpreted in starkly different ways.
Our research analyzed Mamdani’s rhetoric across multiple platforms — from television interviews to TikTok and YouTube — and traced how his words were reframed by influencers and audiences online.
The findings reveal how ambiguous political language can fuel polarization, distort Holocaust memory, and invite antisemitic readings that the speaker may never have intended.
The Power — and Peril — of Ambiguity
Ambiguity functions as a rhetorical strategy: it allows politicians to gesture in several directions at once, offering different audiences the interpretations they prefer. This flexibility provides plausible deniability, yet also creates an opening for distortion and hate.
Mamdani’s communication style is a textbook case. His remarks on Israel and antisemitism frequently hover between empathy and insinuation, critique and deflection — giving the impression of moral seriousness while avoiding clear commitments.
The effect is twofold: admirers see courage and compassion; critics see evasion and coded hostility. But the real consequences emerge online, where ambiguous statements are picked up by content creators, reframed through ideological lenses, and amplified to millions — often in ways that intensify division and resentment.
Omissions That Speak Volumes
Following Hamas’ October 7, 2023 massacre, in which terrorists murdered 1,200 Israelis and abducted more than 250, Mamdani issued a statement that conspicuously omitted any mention of Hamas or its victims.
Instead, he accused the Israeli government of preparing a “second Nakba.”
Such omissions are not neutral. In political communication, what is left unsaid shapes interpretation just as powerfully as explicit statements. By focusing solely on Israel’s alleged actions, Mamdani’s message erased the context of terrorism and Jewish suffering — effectively reframing a massacre as an act of “resistance.”
This pattern continued in later comments. Mamdani publicly repeated claims — later shown by independent investigations to be caused by a misfired Palestinian rocket — that Israel had bombed the Al-Ahli hospital in Gaza and that pro-Israel students at New York protests had used “chemical weapons.” Both claims spread rapidly online before being debunked. Yet even after corrections, the emotional narrative — Israel as aggressor, Jews as oppressors — remained intact.
When asked about these inaccuracies, Mamdani rarely corrected himself. Instead, he shifted attention to alleged efforts to silence him. In one speech, he attacked the lobbying group AIPAC as “undermining American democracy.” In the version later posted to his social media, that line was quietly edited out — an omission that further invited speculation and conspiratorial readings.
The pattern is consistent: statements are made, outrage follows, then a revised version appears — leaving both supporters and detractors to project their own meanings onto the ambiguity.
Reframing and Decontextualization
Much of Mamdani’s rhetorical power lies in reframing contentious slogans. During debates and interviews, he defended the chant “From the River to the Sea” as an expression of “universal human emancipation,” detaching it from its historic associations with the destruction of Israel. Likewise, when confronted about the slogan “Globalize the Intifada,” he called it “a call for justice,” likening it to the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising.
In the Bulwark podcast, he cited the US Holocaust Memorial Museum’s translation of “intifada” as “uprising” — implying moral equivalence between Jewish resistance during the Holocaust and Palestinian militancy today. Such analogies, presented as scholarly nuance, flatten historical distinctions and convert Holocaust memory into a tool of political comparison.
This decontextualization serves two purposes: it universalizes Jewish suffering (suggesting it belongs equally to all oppressed peoples) and downplays antisemitic violence within the Palestinian movement.
The result is a moral narrative where Jewish trauma becomes a universal metaphor, detached from Jewish history — a rhetorical move with deep emotional resonance and troubling implications.
“Right to Exist” — With Conditions
Mamdani’s statements about Israel’s right to exist are similarly ambivalent. On The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, he affirmed support for Israel “as long as it abides by international law” — a condition that effectively renders recognition provisional. In a later debate, he reiterated that Israel has “a right to exist” but declined to say “as a Jewish state,” instead describing a hypothetical state “with equal rights.”
These formulations sound reasonable, but they subtly shift the premise: from defending Israel’s right to exist as the world’s only Jewish homeland — a right enshrined after the Holocaust — to questioning the legitimacy of Jewish self-determination altogether.
Such framing enables both deniability (“I said they have a right to exist”) and accusation (“but they are violating it”).
How Digital Amplification Works
Our team analyzed hundreds of YouTube and TikTok videos discussing Mamdani’s remarks, focusing on content creators with large followings such as Hasan Piker, Kyle Kulinski, Sam Seder, Guy Christensen, and Vaush.
Across these channels, we coded the creators’ framing of Mamdani’s rhetoric and examined the first 200 comments per video.
The pattern was unmistakable: ambiguity in Mamdani’s statements invited radical amplification online. Influencers portrayed him as a victim of “smears,” “Islamophobia,” and “AIPAC propaganda.”
In turn, comment sections erupted into open antisemitic conspiracy theories.
- Denial and Inversion
Creators like Piker dismissed accusations of antisemitism as “fake nonsense,” claiming they were “weapons” to silence pro-Palestinian voices. Commenters echoed this denial, insisting that “antisemitism is a made-up shield” and calling the Anti-Defamation League the “Apartheid Defense League.”
This rhetorical inversion — portraying those who identify antisemitism as aggressors — transforms legitimate concern into alleged oppression. It blurs the line between defending free speech and trivializing hate.
- Competing Victimhood
Another recurring pattern was reversal of victimhood. Influencers framed criticism of Mamdani as evidence of Islamophobia, arguing that “Muslim politicians are automatically branded antisemitic.” In comment sections, this morphed into claims that Jewish concerns about antisemitism are “privileged” over Muslim experiences of discrimination.
This competitive framing pits minority groups against one another, eroding solidarity and obscuring the specific nature of antisemitism as a distinct, historically rooted form of hate.
- Conspiracy and Servility Tropes
When Democratic leaders criticized Mamdani, content creators claimed they were “doing AIPAC’s bidding.” Commenters took this further: “The Zionists control every dimension of life,” one wrote. Others invoked classic antisemitic imagery — “Follow the $$$ … puppets of Israel” — or even violent fantasies, predicting Mamdani would be “JFK’d” if he continued defying “the lobby.”
These narratives recycle centuries-old myths of Jewish financial and political control, now reframed in the language of internet populism.
- Normalizing Anti-Israel Rhetoric
Creators like Kulinski claimed Mamdani’s stance represented “mainstream Democratic opinion,” suggesting most Americans — even Jewish ones — share his criticisms of Israel. Commenters adopted this as fact, declaring that “the only thing Zionists fear is losing power.”
This normalization transforms hostility toward Israel into a marker of political authenticity. Within this logic, accusing someone of antisemitism becomes proof of their moral courage — a dynamic increasingly visible across progressive movements.
- Holocaust Inversion and Dehumanization
The most alarming finding was the reversal of Holocaust imagery. Influencers compared Israel to Nazi Germany; commenters fused the terms into slurs like “Zionazi” or “Isra-heil.” Some even glorified violence, cloaking assassination fantasies in gaming metaphors: “Trump and Netanyahu in NY? Perfect 2-for-1 moment for the Mario Brothers.”
While such remarks may seem fringe, they accumulate into a broader culture of digital derision — a climate where violent and dehumanizing speech becomes normalized through humor, irony, or moral outrage.
From Ambiguity to Escalation
The progression across these layers — Mamdani’s original statements, influencers’ reinterpretations, and audience reactions — shows how strategic ambiguity can spiral into participatory hate.
- Primary discourse: Mamdani’s words, open-ended and self-protective, avoid explicit antisemitism while enabling multiple readings.
- Secondary discourse: Influencers reframe his critics as tools of oppression, inverting accusations and legitimizing resentment.
- Tertiary discourse: Audiences collapse nuance entirely, producing overt antisemitic language and violent fantasies.
As meaning travels outward from the politician’s mouth to millions of screens, moral ambiguity collapses into moral abdication. This discursive spiral is not unique to Mamdani. It reflects a broader trend in digital politics, where rhetorical vagueness is weaponized by audiences seeking validation rather than understanding.
The Broader Challenge
Mamdani’s case highlights a growing dilemma for democracies: how to handle rhetoric that inflames division without crossing into illegal hate speech. Platforms and policymakers still struggle to address this “gray zone,” where statements remain technically permissible yet have corrosive downstream effects.
Democracy depends not only on freedom of speech but also on responsibility in speech. Politicians who wish to champion justice cannot outsource the meaning of their words to online mobs. Clarity is not censorship; it is accountability.
As the digital public sphere amplifies every utterance, the boundary between rhetoric and radicalization narrows. Mamdani’s example should serve as a warning: when ambiguity becomes a political habit, amplification becomes inevitable — and the cost is borne by those targeted in its echoes.
Dr. Matthias J. Becker is a Researcher in discourse studies at the University of Cambridge and New York University, and Research Lead at AddressHate. He directs the “Decoding Antisemitism” research project, which analyzes how antisemitic ideas spread in digital communication.
Gabrielle Beacken is a PhD student in Journalism and Media at the University of Texas at Austin. Her research focuses on propaganda, disinformation, and online antisemitism across social media and emerging technologies. She is a Research Assistant at the Center for Media Engagement’s Propaganda Research Lab.
Liora Sabra is a PhD student in Hebrew and Judaic Studies at New York University. Her research explores antisemitism, Holocaust memory, and propaganda, focusing on definitional debates and their reflection in public discourse. She works at NYU’s Center for the Study of Antisemitism, contributing to research on prejudice and political communication.
Uncategorized
Campus Antisemitism Surges at Start of New Academic Year, New Report Finds
Illustrative: Pro-Hamas activists at Dartmouth College. Photo: New Deal Coalition/Instagram.
Incidents of campus antisemitism continue to rise around the world, as revealed in a new monthly report published by the Combat Antisemitism Movement (CAM) civil rights organization.
Published by the group’s Antisemitism Research Center (ARC), the report said CAM recorded 53 antisemitic incidents on college campuses in the month of September, a 178 percent increase over the previous month, when 19 were recorded despite students being present on campus during the summer holiday.
“This surge reflects the resumption of the academic year and the persistent problem of antisemitism at colleges and university,” the report said. “In France, students at Sorbonne University in Paris discussed a targeted shooting attack against Jewish students at the school. In Argentina, students at the Universidad Nacional de Córdoba seized control of parts of the campus, protesting Israel’s ‘genocide’ of the Palestinians.”
The report added that the US saw 38 campus antisemitism incidents in September, several of which The Algemeiner reported.
In upstate New York, for example, law enforcement agencies filed hate crime charges against two Syracuse University students who they say forcefully gained entry into a Jewish fraternity’s off-campus house during Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year, and heaved a bag of pork at a wall, causing its contents to splatter across the floor.
Allen Groves, the university’s chief officer of student experience, said in a statement issued on behalf of the school that law enforcement captured the suspects just moments after they attempted to abscond to an unknown location in a getaway car. He added that they will face disciplinary charges brought by the school in addition to pending criminal penalties.
In Hanover, New Hampshire, an unknown person or group graffitied a swastika, the symbol of the Nazi Party, outside the dormitory of a Jewish student at Dartmouth College.
The graffitiing of a swastika as a method of intimidation and expression of hate on the campus shocked Dartmouth;s Jewish community and stood out for being perpetrated only days before Jews across the US and the world observed Rosh Hashanah.
“With Jewish high holidays around the corner, our community feels the impact of this crime even more profoundly,” Ruby Benjamin, a Jewish Dartmouth student and president of the campus Chabad, told The Dartmouth, the college’s official student newspaper. “In a time that should be marked with joy, we are forced to look hatred in the eye. While we are disgusted by yesterday’s events, we are not afraid. Today, as always, we stand together as a strong community.”
In Manhattan, New York, an unknown person graffitied antisemitic messages inside the Weinstein residence hall at New York University, prompting school president Linda Mills to issue a statement condemning antisemitism and imploring students to uphold the institution’s values.
The outrages continued into the month of October. Just last week, Cornell University took center stage in another campus antisemitism outrage when its student newspaper published an anti-Zionist opinion piece which promoted Holocaust inversion by melding a Nazi symbol with the Star of David.
Written by Karim-Aly Assam, the article implied an equivalence of Israel’s military objective to eradicate Hamas from Gaza with the Nazi genocide of Jews across Europe during World War II, a trope which anti-Israel activists and antisemites traffic to foster negative public opinion against Israel’s efforts to secure its borders and quell jihadist activity in the Palestinian territories.
The tactic — Holocaust inversion — is one part of a triad of Holocaust-skepticism, the other two components of which are “denial” and “distortion” — used to defame Jews and deny that they are and have been victims of hatred. Once reserved to neo-Nazi media, Holocaust inversion, experts say, is being increasingly embraced by other more mainstream segments of society.
A new survey conducted by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the Academic Engagement Network (AEN) found that staff and faculty are accelerating the antisemitism crisis on US college campuses by politicizing the classroom, promoting anti-Israel bias, and even discriminating against Jewish colleagues.
The survey of “Jewish-identifying US-based faculty members” found that 73 percent of Jewish faculty witnessed their colleagues engaging in antisemitic activity, and a significant percentage named the Faculty and Staff for Justice in Palestine (FSJP) group as the force driving it. Of those aware of an FSJP chapter on their campus, the vast majority of respondents reported that the chapter engaged in anti-Israel programming (77.2 percent), organized anti-Israel protests and demonstrations (79.4 percent), and endorsed anti-Israel divestment campaigns (84.8 percent).
Additionally, 50 percent of respondents said that anti-Zionist faculty have established de facto, or “shadow,” boycotts of Israel on campus even in the absence of formal declaration or recognition of one by the administration.
“What we’re seeing is a betrayal of the fundamental principles of academic freedom and collegiality,” ADL chief executive officer Jonathan Greenblatt said in a statement when the report was released. “Jewish faculty are being forced to hide their identities, excluded from professional opportunities, and told by their own colleagues what constitutes antisemitism — even as they experience it firsthand. This hostile environment is driving talented educators and researchers away from careers they’ve dedicated their lives to building.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
Uncategorized
Bob Vylan Frontman Responds to British Airways Pulling Sponsorship of Louis Theroux’s Podcast Over Interview
Louis Theroux in conversation with Bobby Vylan on the Oct. 24, 2025, episode of “The Louis Theroux Podcast.” Photo: YouTube screenshot
The frontman of the British punk rap duo Bob Vylan responded on Sunday to the decision by British Airways to withdraw sponsorship from Louis Theroux’s podcast following his interview with the musician, who said he did not regret his “death to the IDF [Israel Defense Forces]” chant at the Glastonbury Festival and would do it again.
A spokesperson for British Airways told PA Media that content in the interview “clearly breaches our sponsorship policy in relation to politically sensitive or controversial subject matters.”
“We and our third-party media agency have processes in place to ensure these issues don’t occur and we’re investigating how this happened,” added the spokesperson. “Our sponsorship of the series has now been paused, and the advert has been removed.”
Bob Vylan frontman Bobby Vylan, whose real name is Pascal Robinson-Foster, called the move a “scare tactic” in a post on X. “I went on the podcast and as hard as the lobby groups and media tried, they couldn’t twist anything I said. So, they have resorted to lobbying for Louis’ sponsorship to be pulled in an attempt to scare others out of giving me a platform.”
“Their hope to further vilify me couldn’t run, so they target Louis to make an example for sitting with me,” he wrote in separate posts. “The lobby groups, the British government, and media are determined to make an example of me, all because I dare to want an end to a genocidal occupying force guilty of war crimes.”
Robinson-Foster was a guest on Theroux’s podcast last week and talked in great length about the “death, death to the IDF” chant that he led at Glastonbury in June in Somerset, England. The musician told the podcast host and documentarian that he is “not regretful of it at all” and “would do it again tomorrow, [and] twice on Sundays.” He also called “death to the IDF” a “perfect chant.”
“The subsequent backlash that I’ve faced — it’s minimal,” he added. “It’s minimal compared to what people in Palestine are going through. If that can be my contribution and if I can have my Palestinian friends and people that I meet from Palestine, that have had to flee, that have lost members in double digits of their family and they can say, ‘Yo, your chant, I love it.’ Or ‘it gave me a breath of fresh air or whatever’ – and I don’t want to overstate the importance of the chant. That’s not what I’m trying to do – but if I have their support, they’re the people that I’m doing it for. They’re the people that I’m being vocal for.”
Robinson-Foster also claimed that Bob Vylan’s Glastonbury set was praised and called “fantastic” by employees of the BBC, which live streamed the Glastonbury Festival. The BBC apologized for live streaming Bob Vylan’s “offensive and deplorable behavior” and BBC chairman Samir Shah separately apologized for the network’s mistake in broadcasting the band’s “unconscionable antisemitic views.” The anti-IDF chant was even condemned by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer.
After the Glastonbury incident, the United Talent Agency dropped Bob Vylan as its client, and the band had several concerts and festival performances canceled. Bob Vylan had their US visas revoked and are currently under criminal investigation in the UK because of the chant. There was a recorded rise in antisemitic incidents in the United Kingdom the day after Bob Vylan’s anti-IDF chant at Glastonbury, but Robinson-Foster told Theroux last week he does not believe he contributed to creating “an unsafe atmosphere for the Jewish community” in the UK following the festival.
The vocalist insisted in a social media post last month “there is nothing antisemitic or criminal about anything I said at Glastonbury.” Bob Vylan previously said in a statement on Instagram that the “death to the IDF” chant was a call “for the dismantling of a violent military machine.”
Robinson-Foster called for violence against Zionists during a September concert in Amsterdam, and while performing in Spain over the summer, he encouraged “armed resistance” against the IDF and proclaimed, “Down with Israel.”
Uncategorized
Embattled Irish Jewish Leaders Congratulate Country’s New President Despite Anti-Israel Record, Seek Fresh Start
President-elect Catherine Connolly is applauded by Irish Taoiseach (Prime Minister) Micheal Martin and Irish Tanaiste (Deputy Prime Minister) Simon Harris at Dublin Castle, on the day of the announcement of the results of the Irish presidential election in Dublin, Ireland, Oct. 25, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Clodagh Kilcoyne
Ireland’s Jewish community has welcomed the election of the country’s new president, expressing hope that her leadership will foster unity despite her record of anti-Israel remarks and previous comments defending Hamas.
On Friday, Catherine Connolly won a historic landslide victory, securing 63 percent of the vote — the largest margin in Ireland’s history — defeating center-right candidate Heather Humphreys.
As a left-wing lawmaker who has served in Ireland’s parliament since 2016, Connolly’s election marks the rise of a prominent anti-Israel voice at a time when the country has emerged as one of Israel’s fiercest critics amid the war in Gaza, a stance that has only intensified in recent months.
“My message is use your voice in every way you can, because a republic and a democracy needs constructive questioning, and together we can shape a new republic that values everybody,” Connolly said in a post on X following her victory.
“My message is use your voice in every way you can, because a republic and a democracy needs constructive questioning, and together we can shape a new republic that values everybody.” – President-Elect Catherine Connolly. pic.twitter.com/Go6D2SIdzm
— Connolly for President (@catherinegalway) October 25, 2025
In Ireland, the president serves largely as a symbolic figure, representing the country in diplomatic matters and fulfilling key constitutional duties but without the power to enact laws or policies.
In the past, Connolly has drawn repeated criticism from the country’s leaders and the local Jewish community for her anti-Israel rhetoric, which has been accused of going too far into the realm of antisemitism. The Irish president-elect has even defended the Hamas-led invasion of and massacre across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.
At first, Connolly said she was “reluctant to unequivocally condemn Oct. 7.”
She later clarified that Hamas’s atrocities — which included murdering 1,200 people, kidnapping 251 hostages, and perpetrating widespread rape and other sexual violence — were “absolutely wrong,” while also asserting that the attacks did not constitute genocide and that the history of the conflict “did not start on Oct. 7.”
Many anti-Israel activists have similarly framed Hamas’s Oct. 7 invasion as a justified response to Israeli policy toward Gaza and the Palestinians more broadly in an apparent attempt to defend the massacre.
Connolly has also sharply criticized Israel, labeling it a “terrorist state,” claiming it is not “democratic,” and accusing it of seeking to “accomplish Jewish supremacy.”
‘If we in this Dáil cannot recognise that Israel is a terrorist state, then we are in serious trouble.’
Catherine’s full speech on the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) (Amendment) Bill /
Óráid iomlán Catherine ar an mBille: https://t.co/fYEisivU8B pic.twitter.com/6zE0DNmGc3— Connolly for President (@catherinegalway) June 27, 2025
Despite her well-known record of hostilities toward the Jewish state, the Jewish Representative Council of Ireland (JRCI) — the main representative body of Irish Jews — congratulated Connolly on her presidential victory.
“The Jewish community in Ireland looks forward to working constructively with the president, as we have with her predecessors, in fostering mutual respect, understanding, and the flourishing of all communities that make up the fabric of Irish life,” Maurice Cohen, president of JRCI, said in a post on X.
“We are sincerely hopeful that President-Elect Connolly will engage positively with Ireland’s small but very proud Irish Jewish community,” she continued.
The Jewish Representative Council of Ireland warmly congratulates Catherine Connolly on her presidential win.
We are sincerely hopeful that President-Elect Connolly will engage positively with Ireland’s small but very proud Irish Jewish community. pic.twitter.com/mkBkiNlodd
— Rachel Moiselle (@RachelMoiselle) October 25, 2025
Ireland’s Chief Rabbi Yoni Wieder also congratulated Connolly, expressing hope that she would use the office to “unite rather than divide,” while acknowledging lingering concerns about her past rhetoric and views.
“She has described [Hamas] as ‘part of the fabric of the Palestinian people,’ yet seems entirely untroubled by that reality. She appears not to object to its remaining in power, even as it openly beats and executes its own people,” Wieder told the Jewish Chronicle.
“Such views do not reflect the outlook of someone committed to a secure and peaceful future,” he continued.
“I would hope that President Connolly will take the opportunity in due course to engage directly with Ireland’s Jewish community, hear our concerns, and understand better how the conflict continues to affect our small community here,” he said.