The Smearing of Zohran Mamdani
I’m no longer a New York voter and I didn’t do all my homework. I was all-in for Brad Lander as I’ve said, and did not really vet Zohran Mamdani. So I belatedly watched the Colbert interview and the original Bulwark interview that touched off the “globalize the intifada” backlash.
Lots of things to process about young New York State Assemblyman Mamdani of Queens. I thought his answers to Colbert on Israel and antisemitism were excellent, Lander’s too. The most offensive thing Mamdani did was pronounce B’nai Jeshurun “ben-eye” (it’s beh-neigh) and Ehud Olmert’s last name as “Ol-mare” (he’s not French, Zohran, and he’s not Colbert).
Mamdani’s remarks on the slogan “globalize the intifada” first appeared in a long interview with Tim Miller and Cameron Kasky of The Bulwark (an essential outlet of our time, I highly recommend a sub). The relevant portion begins far in, at 40:30.
Miller asks Mamdani directly about “globalize the intifada.” “Maybe some people say that phrase with good intent,” Miller says, “but there are certainly some people saying that phrase with violent intent. So I wonder what you think about that.”
Here it is clear: Miller, who is deeply offended by “globalize the intifada,” is the one who introduces the idea that maybe some people “say that phrase with good intent.” Mamdani later says, “I know people for whom those words [globalize the intifada] mean very different things,” with Miller nodding in assent. He picks up on Miller’s theme, in other words, but doesn’t even go as far as Miller in ascribing possible “good intent.”
Notably, Mamdani begins his answer by establishing that there is a definite upsurge in antisemitism; that it is an emergency; and that it exists in part among the far left. He speaks of “the horrific war crime of October 7” and describes in detail the legitimate fears of New York Jews that he has met personally.
When the subject turns again to “globalize the intifada,” Mamdani makes a nuanced case against getting mired in language debates, alluding to how phrases like “Allahu Akbar” were seen as threats in the wake of 9/11. “We need to focus on keeping Jewish New Yorkers safe,” he insists. “The question of the permissibility of language is something that I haven’t ventured into.”
So, he should venture into it. He should continue to reflect long and hard on it. But it is clear to me that he is someone who’s already doing so.
An initially skeptical Miller seemed to come away satisfied with Mamdani’s answer. It is an answer we can parse and pick apart, and that is fair game. It can be argued with, but that is the point: It is an argument. It is not the ranting of some maniacal, jargon-spewing DSA activist.
Watch the whole thing; there is nothing truly objectionable in this interview at all. Not even close to what is being talked about in the echo chambers. Just before watching the video I saw a thread calling Mamdani “an unrepentant antisemite.” After watching, it’s clear that this is a vile and ignorant smear.
Republicans are calling for revoking Mamdani’s citizenship and deporting him. Those in the Jewish community who amplify and participate in this wave of bigotry, especially at this hour, should be ashamed. This is a decent and empathetic man and I personally hope he’s the next mayor.
That said, I’ll go from simple endorsement to great enthusiasm when I see Mamdani get denounced by DSA members as a far-right Zionist genocide supporter, like they’ve done with AOC. That’s how you know AOC walks the walk. Time will tell if Mamdani is made of the same stuff. I suspect he is. [Update: This has already happened.] ◊
