Mamdani Set the Israel Purity Test, But His Students Flunked Him | Opinion

U.S.NewsPoliticsAI PoliticsTechFact CheckSportsGlobalIran WarRussia-UkraineMiddle EastChina And AsiaLive BlogBetter PlanetAll World NewsLifestyleFamily & ParentingEntertainmentTravelPetsAutomotiveRelationshipsScienceHealthPersonal FinanceBetter WorkplacesReaders ChoiceOpinionMy TurnAll OpinionRankingsHealthCorporate ResponsibilityFinanceProductsEducationWorkAll RankingsWatchThe 1600The Royal ReportUnconventionalFrom The PaddockNewsmakersSocialFacebookInstagramYouTubeRedditTikTokTwitter/XExtraNewslettersDare to DreamEventsEssaysPodcastsVantageInsightsMagazineCEO CircleAnnouncementsLeadershipDev Pragad There is a terrible irony in the spectacle of protesters turning on New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, chanting, "Mamdani you can't hide, we charge you with genocide." Given that accusing Israel of genocide has been one of Mamdani's calling cards, the reversal is almost comical. The episode at a vigil for the victims of October 7 also reveals how obsessive are the forces that politicians such as Mamdani have encouraged, and how hopeless is the notion that the ideological extremism that has spread and metastasized into an anti-Israel obsession can be satisfied through accommodation. Mamdani's great offense, apparently, was to acknowledge that Jews had suffered an atrocity on October 7, 2023. On the third anniversary of the Hamas massacre, he issued a statement describing the attack as "horrific war crimes," recalling the more than 1,100 Israelis murdered and 251 people abducted into Gaza, and expressing sympathy for New Yorkers who continue to carry the trauma of that day. The opening lines seemed to some like lip service, since the statement then pivoted into a sweeping denunciation of Israel, accusing it of an "ongoing genocide," invoking apartheid and occupation, condemning American complicity and cataloging Palestinian suffering. Indeed, the overwhelming majority of the message was devoted to Israel's alleged crimes. Even on the anniversary of the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust, Mamdani felt compelled to turn Jewish remembrance into another occasion for prosecuting the Palestinian case. For some of the activists whose cause he has so enthusiastically embraced, any sympathy for Jews is too much sympathy. The mayor had failed a purity test that appears not to permit any acknowledgment of Israeli suffering whatsoever, without treating it as a betrayal. This, even though Mamdani is a far-left populist who has gone further than most American elected officials in adopting the language of the anti-Israel movement. He now discovers its most uncompromising elements were prepared to turn on him anyway. Like the mobs of the French and Russian revolutions, this anti-Zionist version believes itself to be morally superior. But that means the space where true purity can sit becomes smaller and smaller to the point where not even Mamdani can live. The original problem with Mamdani's statement deserves some attention. There are 364 other days in the year on which the mayor can denounce Israel's conduct in Gaza. He has certainly demonstrated his willingness to do so. The insistence on turning this particular day into another indictment of Israel reflects an inability to recognize Jewish suffering on its own terms. That makes the irony of the mob he faced and the obvious discomfort he felt as he heard shouts of "traitor" all the greater. Acknowledging the victims of October 7 carries no obligation to recite a corresponding indictment of Israel, just as mourning Palestinian children killed in Gaza should require no preliminary declaration about Hamas. As has been seen many times—just ask poor Ed Sheeran—appeasement of a mob has a habit of backfiring. A prevailing political culture has emerged in which Jewish suffering is treated as something that must be qualified, contextualized or immediately balanced against Palestinian suffering. The result is a peculiar moral accounting in which Jews are permitted to mourn only if their grief is accompanied by an acceptable political statement. London Mayor Sadiq Khan's October 7 statement this week also combined remembrance of Hamas' victims with a discussion on Palestinian suffering. This impulse appears increasingly familiar among politicians who fear that an unqualified expression of sympathy for Israelis will provoke anger from the activists on whom they have come to depend. On October 7, protesters thought it appropriate to march through London while Britain's Jews were trying to remember the dead, raped and kidnapped victims of Hamas. The Metropolitan Police pleaded with the protesters to desist for just this one day, but they refused. The reaction to Mamdani suggests that even carefully calibrated statements will fail somebody's purity test, because what constitutes "purity" can always be moved. At issue is the political culture of absolutism, especially on the woke left, where even the smallest departure from ideological orthodoxy constitutes betrayal. The protesters who turned on Mamdani may or may not be representative of wider groups, but they certainly offer an illustration of the quasi-religious mania at play. When Western leaders adopt Hamas' rhetoric while neglecting the responsibility of this terrorist organization for the catastrophe it helped unleash, they risk reinforcing a political culture in which terrorism becomes understandable as resistance and Jewish suffering becomes acceptable, sometimes necessary, collateral damage. Democratic politicians in particular face pressure from activists who demand increasingly categorical positions on Israel and Palestine. The temptation is to accommodate that pressure through progressively harsher language, hoping to preserve political support while retaining enough moderation to appeal to a broader electorate. Mamdani's experience suggests the limitations of that calculation. This is especially reckless in a city with the largest Jewish population outside Israel, where the mayor has a particular responsibility to ensure that Jewish residents can mourn their dead and express their identity without intimidation. The mayor's words carry consequences beyond the immediate controversy. They help establish what kinds of political behavior are regarded as acceptable and what kinds of hostility are excused as righteous indignation. Mamdani has received an unusually vivid warning. The mayor may be asking himself, "How did this happen?" He should look in the mirror. Dan Perry is the former London-based Europe-Africa editor and Cairo-based Middle East editor of the Associated Press, chairman of the Foreign Press Association in Jerusalem, and the author of two books. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own….By Dan Perry0ShareNewsweek is a Trust Project memberSee more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.There is a terrible irony in the spectacle of protesters turning on New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, chanting, “Mamdani you can’t hide, we charge you with genocide.” Given that accusing Israel of genocide has been one of Mamdani’s calling cards, the reversal is almost comical.

The episode at a vigil for the victims of October 7 also reveals how obsessive are the forces that politicians such as Mamdani have encouraged, and how hopeless is the notion that the ideological extremism that has spread and metastasized into an anti-Israel obsession can be satisfied through accommodation.

Mamdani’s great offense, apparently, was to acknowledge that Jews had suffered an atrocity on October 7, 2023. On the third anniversary of the Hamas massacre, he issued a statement describing the attack as “horrific war crimes,” recalling the more than 1,100 Israelis murdered and 251 people abducted into Gaza, and expressing sympathy for New Yorkers who continue to carry the trauma of that day.

The opening lines seemed to some like lip service, since the statement then pivoted into a sweeping denunciation of Israel, accusing it of an “ongoing genocide,” invoking apartheid and occupation, condemning American complicity and cataloging Palestinian suffering.

Indeed, the overwhelming majority of the message was devoted to Israel’s alleged crimes. Even on the anniversary of the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust, Mamdani felt compelled to turn Jewish remembrance into another occasion for prosecuting the Palestinian case.

For some of the activists whose cause he has so enthusiastically embraced, any sympathy for Jews is too much sympathy. The mayor had failed a purity test that appears not to permit any acknowledgment of Israeli suffering whatsoever, without treating it as a betrayal. This, even though Mamdani is a far-left populist who has gone further than most American elected officials in adopting the language of the anti-Israel movement. He now discovers its most uncompromising elements were prepared to turn on him anyway.

Like the mobs of the French and Russian revolutions, this anti-Zionist version believes itself to be morally superior. But that means the space where true purity can sit becomes smaller and smaller to the point where not even Mamdani can live.

The original problem with Mamdani’s statement deserves some attention. There are 364 other days in the year on which the mayor can denounce Israel’s conduct in Gaza. He has certainly demonstrated his willingness to do so. The insistence on turning this particular day into another indictment of Israel reflects an inability to recognize Jewish suffering on its own terms. That makes the irony of the mob he faced and the obvious discomfort he felt as he heard shouts of “traitor” all the greater.

Acknowledging the victims of October 7 carries no obligation to recite a corresponding indictment of Israel, just as mourning Palestinian children killed in Gaza should require no preliminary declaration about Hamas. As has been seen many times—just ask poor Ed Sheeran—appeasement of a mob has a habit of backfiring.

A prevailing political culture has emerged in which Jewish suffering is treated as something that must be qualified, contextualized or immediately balanced against Palestinian suffering. The result is a peculiar moral accounting in which Jews are permitted to mourn only if their grief is accompanied by an acceptable political statement.

London Mayor Sadiq Khan’s October 7 statement this week also combined remembrance of Hamas’ victims with a discussion on Palestinian suffering. This impulse appears increasingly familiar among politicians who fear that an unqualified expression of sympathy for Israelis will provoke anger from the activists on whom they have come to depend.

On October 7, protesters thought it appropriate to march through London while Britain’s Jews were trying to remember the dead, raped and kidnapped victims of Hamas. The Metropolitan Police pleaded with the protesters to desist for just this one day, but they refused.

Related StoryHow the West Was Won: Hamas’ Culture War VictoryThe reaction to Mamdani suggests that even carefully calibrated statements will fail somebody’s purity test, because what constitutes “purity” can always be moved. At issue is the political culture of absolutism, especially on the woke left, where even the smallest departure from ideological orthodoxy constitutes betrayal.

The protesters who turned on Mamdani may or may not be representative of wider groups, but they certainly offer an illustration of the quasi-religious mania at play.

When Western leaders adopt Hamas’ rhetoric while neglecting the responsibility of this terrorist organization for the catastrophe it helped unleash, they risk reinforcing a political culture in which terrorism becomes understandable as resistance and Jewish suffering becomes acceptable, sometimes necessary, collateral damage.

Democratic politicians in particular face pressure from activists who demand increasingly categorical positions on Israel and Palestine. The temptation is to accommodate that pressure through progressively harsher language, hoping to preserve political support while retaining enough moderation to appeal to a broader electorate.

Mamdani’s experience suggests the limitations of that calculation.

This is especially reckless in a city with the largest Jewish population outside Israel, where the mayor has a particular responsibility to ensure that Jewish residents can mourn their dead and express their identity without intimidation. The mayor’s words carry consequences beyond the immediate controversy. They help establish what kinds of political behavior are regarded as acceptable and what kinds of hostility are excused as righteous indignation. Mamdani has received an unusually vivid warning.

The mayor may be asking himself, “How did this happen?” He should look in the mirror.

Dan Perry is the former London-based Europe-Africa editor and Cairo-based Middle East editor of the Associated Press, chairman of the Foreign Press Association in Jerusalem, and the author of two books.

The views expressed in this article are the writer’s own.