Mamdani’s Anti-IHRA Stance Will Put Jewish Students at Risk

For years, the debate has raged over what constitutes the best definition of anti-Semitism. While options abound, the three most prominent emerge from a conversation about the most widely used and accepted definition: The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition, adopted by the IHRA plenary in Budapest in 2015. The Jerusalem Declaration, conceived as an alternative to the IHRA definition by a group of seven scholars and a filmmaker, challenges the IHRA definition, most conspicuously for its stance on Israel. The Nexus document, written by scholars belonging to the Nexus Task Force and affiliated with the Bard Center for Hate, serves as a complement to the IHRA, bolstering its shortcomings without opposing it.

The fact that the very conversation about the definition of anti-Semitism revolves around the IHRA definition should serve to underscore its importance. Deborah Lipstadt, the U.S. Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Antisemitism, supports the IHRA definition as the most translatable internationally, while blasting the Jerusalem Declaration for being supported by anti-Semites.

Truthfully, critiques of the IHRA definition, of which the Jerusalem Declaration is one, are often put forth by the pro-Palestinian side, which frequently foregrounds the needs of Palestinians and their supporters over victims of anti-Semitism.

[RELATED: From Campus Rhetoric to Assassination]

Such has been the case with Zohran Mamdani. The New York democratic candidate for Mayor has said that, were he to be elected, he would reverse the executive order of Mayor Eric Adams, who, in June, signed an order to formally adopt the IHRA definition of the city of New York. Mamdani gave as his justification the IHRA definition’s classifying the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement as anti-Semitic and thus shutting down pro-Palestinian expression, even as evidence abounds for BDS being an anti-Semitic movement that serves to oppose peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

Mamdani proposed an alternative to the IHRA, suggesting that he would utilize the guidelines provided by the Biden administration in its strategy to counter anti-Semitism in his government. (See The U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism). But only the IHRA definition and the complementary Nexus document are even mentioned in this strategy, and of the two, the IHRA is put as paramount, being “embraced” by the government, even as the Nexus document is only “welcomed and acknowledged.” Furthermore, it is clear from the State Department website that the only definition the U.S. Government has ever used since the definition’s inception in 2016 has been the IHRA definition, including during Biden’s term.

Thus, the idea that Mamdani could follow Biden’s protocols while rejecting the IHRA is a fiction, built on ambiguities in the strategy—i.e., its failure to explicitly endorse IHRA as the State Department website does—and predicated on his audience’s ignorance of the discussion around the definition of anti-Semitism and U.S. policy relating to the matter.

By pledging to reject the IHRA definition while supposedly preserving the definition under Biden, he can act in his interests and those of the anti-Zionists, even while appearing to still care about anti-Semitism.

In this, Mamdani follows a recognizable pro-Palestinian pattern: use the gray area in the debate to confuse the audience and gain support. The classic gray area stands between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, such that Jewish organizations such as the AJC have needed to release guides to help people understand some of the everyday anti-Semitic actions that sneak in under the banner of anti-Zionism.

[RELATED: ‘Can Universities Take Anti-Semitism Seriously?’]

Like equating anti-Semitism with Islamophobia, the use of this gray area often allows anti-Zionists to garner sympathy for the pro-Palestinian cause while deflecting or minimizing Jewish suffering, such that even in a conversation about the protection of Jews, the needs of the Palestinians are privileged. Then, once support has been garnered, anti-Zionists can continue to engage in anti-Semitic actions, claiming that they fall only under anti-Zionist action under the definition—or lack of definition, as with Mamdani—they endorse.

Harvard, along with 345 universities globally, has adopted the IHRA definition. Because Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), the anti-Zionist Jewish organization that includes a student and faculty network and has fomented significant anti-Semitism on campuses around the country, has opposed the IHRA definition, adopting it at more colleges would represent a significant symbolic alignment with the majority of Jews and against anti-Semitism. If Mamdani were to do away with the definition, conversely, that symbolic act would have the potential to negatively affect the campus climate for Jews by weakening their ability to point to BDS and other anti-Zionist activity as anti-Semitic.

This is only one reason to oppose Mamdani, but those who are familiar with his platform will know he rabidly wishes to destroy Israel. So even as his stance on the definition of anti-Semitism is partially obscured, it is clear that if Jewish students on campus are to be protected, and anti-Semitism in general to be guarded against, Mamdani cannot be allowed to revoke the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism.

Image: “Zohran Mamdani at Caveat” on Bryan Berlin on Wikimedia Commons