Zohran Mamdani isn't as clever as he thinks

Telegraph

3 days ago

A bizarre obsession with the Palestinian issue continues to poison progressive politics – including (surprise!) the campaign of Zohran Mamdani. The Democratic nominee for New York's mayoral race has refused to condemn the phrase 'globalise the intifada', despite sharp criticism from fellow Democrats.
The phrase, seen by many as a call for violence against Jews, is actually 'a desperate desire for equality and equal rights in standing up for Palestinian human rights,' said Mamdani, not long before his surprising win. Then, this past weekend, he again declined to decry the phrase. Instead, he meekly noted 'that's not language that I use,' on the news show Meet the Press, before adding that he would serve as a mayor 'that protects Jewish New Yorkers' if ultimately elected in November.
Mamdani's equivocations are hardly surprising. Presumably he thinks he's being clever by attempting to reassure Jewish voters, while signalling a quiet approval for some of the darkest rhetoric of the Palestinian cause.
But he has actually exposed how sinister his campaign really is. He's made championing Palestinian nationalism a cornerstone of his political career – despite (beyond his Muslim faith) having very little in common with most Palestinians. The son of an Oscar-nominated film-maker mother and university professor father, Mamdani – like so many who voted for him last week – is the product of privilege, with scant experience in politics or holding a job, let alone of real 'oppression'.
He exists in a world of feelings and vibes – in place of consequence or facts. And Mamdani has given every indication of believing that calling for 'intifada' – despite its clear association with bus bombings, knife attacks and thousands of Jewish dead (it means uprising in Arabic and is used to refer to two periods of Palestinian violence against Israelis) – is legitimate political discourse.
The investor Bill Ackman – who helped take down former Harvard president Claudine Gay – took to X on Monday to ask: 'What if someone called for the killing or suicide bombings of those of a different ethnic background, Zohran, would you not be willing to condemn such a call to violent action? Or is it just for the Jews that you remain silent?'
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries joined the attack, saying Mamdani would 'have to clarify his position on that as he moves forward,' during a weekend appearance on ABC's This Week. 'Globalising the intifada, by way of example, is not an acceptable phrasing.'
Both Ackman and Jeffries could not be more correct. That too many progressives accept effective calls for violence against Jews that they would never tolerate for other ethnicities is not just limited to phrases like 'globalise the intifada'. The double-standard reflects the entire pro-Palestinian movement since the Hamas attack on Israel two Octobers ago. The violent encampments in cities like New York, the wide-scale property damage and, now, the numerous deaths in the United States directly attributed to anti-Semitism somehow avoid the type of critique heaped upon even the most minor affronts against, say, African-Americans or sexual minorities.
In 2020, recall that New York Times opinion editor James Bennet resigned after the paper published an op-ed by Republican Senator Tom Cotton that some black staffers felt made them unsafe, merely because it suggested calling in the National Guard during the height of the Black Lives Matter protests. Mamdani, meanwhile, continues to campaign as the Democrat nominee despite refusing to condemn a phrase that Jews rightly perceive as a call for their murder.
Will Mamdani eventually clarify his position? Don't hold your breath. Like so many on the extreme-Left, Mamdani exists within a bubble of impunity that ascribes negative motives to anyone who criticises its stances. Question the morality of phrases like 'intifada', goes the thinking, and you're a 'Zionist' whose opinion can be safely discounted.
Malicious equivocation is also a veritable party trick for Mamdani. He has refused to say that he supports Israel's right to exist as a Jewish nation. He's said he supports its right to exist 'as a state with equal rights'. But he has added that 'I'm not comfortable supporting any state that has a hierarchy of citizenship on the basis of religion or anything else'.
We've heard this all before – including from Mamdani's own mother, director Mira Nair, who in 2013 refused to participate in the Haifa International Film festival, saying she would 'go to Israel when the state does not privilege one religion over another'.
They conveniently ignore the Muslims and people of other faiths who do, in fact, enjoy equal rights in Israel. Perhaps I've also missed their criticism of the numerous nations that actually do oppress minority religions – either in practice or in law. Saudi Arabia prohibits the public worship of any religion other than Islam. Across much of the Middle East, countries once known for their religious diversity are no longer safe for Jews or Christians.
Why are the likes of Mamdani allowed by their interviewers to get away with it? However overwhelmed and underprepared they are, they must know that they are not dealing with normal politicians, but radicals for whom the obsession with Israel has become almost a pathology.
Many New York voters – including my fellow New York Jews – have failed to see through Mamdani. But now he has to win over the wider New York electorate, not just the Democratic base. Let's hope that we don't have to wait for him to put his agenda into practice before everyone wakes up to the truth.