By: Russ Spencer

The debate over political allegiances in New York City’s tumultuous mayoral race has taken an unexpected turn into the city’s nonprofit sector, as Brooklyn Councilwoman Inna Vernikov declared that organizations engaging with socialist candidate Zohran Mamdani or what she termed “Hamas sympathizers” will no longer be eligible for her discretionary funding. Her uncompromising stance, first made public in a social media post and later expanded in interviews with The New York Post, signals the intensifying political polarization gripping the city as the 2025 mayoral campaign accelerates.

At the heart of the controversy lies a viral video posted on X showing Jewish activist Mark Meyer Appel, founder of the Flatbush-based Bridge Multicultural and Advocacy Project, shaking hands with Mamdani, a self-described democratic socialist and outspoken critic of Israel. For Vernikov, a staunch Zionist and one of the most vocal Republican voices in the City Council, the image was nothing short of a betrayal — not only to the Jewish community but also to the principles she believes should guide the city’s public funding priorities.

In a post on X earlier this week, Vernikov issued what she described as a “public service announcement” to nonprofits. She stated unambiguously that she will not direct discretionary dollars to organizations whose leaders lend support to candidates or figures she associates with Hamas or October 7 apologists.

“I know it may not be much, but just a small PSA for the orgs who will be seeking discretionary funding from me for the next four years: In my discretion, I will NOT fund organizations whose leadership supports Hamas sympathizers and October 7th apologists,” Vernikov wrote.

She then singled out Appel, accusing him of “commie/jihadi a– kissing” after his handshake with Mamdani. “So if you want to be like @MarkMeyerAppel, and support or do photo ops with @ZohranMamdani, don’t even bother calling,” she added.

Speaking later to The New York Post, Vernikov doubled down. “If someone allows themselves to be in a photo with Mamdani, they’re either supporting him or pandering to him,” she said flatly. “Either way, I will defund them.”

Every year, each City Council member is allocated a pool of discretionary dollars — often referred to as “pork” — to direct toward local initiatives, nonprofits, and community programs. For Vernikov, that figure stands at $810,000 this fiscal year. The funds are highly sought after, particularly by smaller community-based organizations that rely on council allocations to sustain their programs.

The New York Post report noted that Appel’s Bridge Multicultural and Advocacy Project secured $60,000 in council funding this fiscal year, though none of it came from Vernikov’s share. Her decision, therefore, is not merely symbolic but could carry tangible consequences for groups that might otherwise seek her backing.

Vernikov’s declaration also reflects the broader political fissures emerging around Mamdani’s candidacy. While the Queens Assemblyman has energized progressive and pro-Hamas activists, his outspoken criticism of Israel and alignment with socialist rhetoric has made him an object of deep mistrust among Jewish leaders, moderates, and business-aligned voters.

Not everyone in City Hall agrees with Vernikov’s approach. Some Democratic sources told The New York Post that her rhetoric crossed a line. “How can you make a blanket statement that you’re not giving a group money but because someone appears in a photo op?” one council source asked, suggesting that such a litmus test for funding could undermine the apolitical mission of nonprofits.

Council Minority Leader Joann Ariola, a Republican from Queens, refrained from directly endorsing Vernikov’s phrasing but reiterated that nonprofits should remain focused on service, not politics. “They should be focused on their goals of helping New York, not on illegal performative activism,” she told The Post.

This divergence highlights the political tightrope many council members walk in an environment where municipal funding has increasingly intersected with ideological allegiances.

For Appel, the uproar seemed unnecessary and misplaced. He told The New York Post that he intends to back Mayor Eric Adams for re-election, not Mamdani, and dismissed the suggestion that his handshake signified support for the socialist challenger.

“The reason why we have so much hate in New York is because we don’t talk to each other,” Appel said. He argued that his group’s mission is fundamentally about building bridges between communities and fostering dialogue, not endorsing political candidates.

Appel also emphasized that his organization never sought Vernikov’s discretionary funds and that she “knows very well the good work we do.” To him, the handshake was less about politics and more about a broader philosophy of engagement, even with those whose views one may find objectionable.

The flare-up once again shines a spotlight on the polarizing presence of Zohran Mamdani in New York politics. The 33-year-old assemblyman from Astoria rose to prominence within the Democratic Socialists of America and has been a vocal critic of U.S. support for Israel. His rhetoric on the Israel-Hamas conflict, particularly after the October 7 massacre, has drawn harsh condemnation from Jewish organizations, centrist Democrats, and Republican leaders alike.

The New York Post has extensively covered Mamdani’s controversial remarks, noting how his framing of October 7 as a symptom of Palestinian desperation — rather than outright terror — has alienated much of the city’s Jewish community. For critics like Vernikov, Mamdani’s candidacy represents not only an ideological threat but also a moral affront.

Against this backdrop, a handshake between Mamdani and a prominent Jewish activist such as Appel takes on outsize symbolism. To Vernikov and her supporters, it suggests normalization — or at least toleration — of Mamdani’s positions. To Appel and others, it may simply reflect the necessity of dialogue, even with adversaries.

Vernikov, who immigrated from Ukraine as a child and represents parts of southern Brooklyn, has become one of the most outspoken defenders of Israel in city politics. A Republican in a heavily Democratic city, she has carved out a reputation for taking combative stances on ideological issues, particularly where Jewish identity and security are concerned.

Her declaration regarding discretionary funding is consistent with that posture — a willingness to use her platform and resources to draw moral lines, even at the risk of alienating potential allies. For Vernikov, the connection between Mamdani’s rhetoric and support for Hamas is not abstract; it is a direct line that makes collaboration untenable.

The incident raises broader questions about the role of nonprofits in New York City’s political ecosystem. Traditionally, these organizations have relied on council allocations to support programs ranging from youth development to senior services. While some groups embrace advocacy, many are careful to avoid overt political entanglements that could jeopardize funding.

As The New York Post report observed, Vernikov’s remarks may prompt nonprofits to reevaluate their public engagements, particularly with polarizing figures like Mamdani. The message is clear: association with certain candidates, even in a limited or symbolic capacity, could carry financial consequences.

For critics, this dynamic risks politicizing the very work nonprofits are meant to do. For supporters, it reflects a necessary boundary — ensuring that taxpayer dollars are not indirectly legitimizing individuals seen as sympathizers with extremist causes.

The Vernikov-Appel-Mamdani episode encapsulates the deep divisions running through New York politics as the mayoral race heats up. On one side are progressives energized by Mamdani’s unapologetically leftist platform. On the other are moderates, conservatives, and much of the city’s Jewish community, alarmed by his rhetoric and policy prescriptions.

Caught in between are figures such as Appel, who advocate for dialogue and bridge-building, even at the cost of angering allies. His position — that engagement is necessary to counteract hate — sits uneasily with Vernikov’s conviction that lines must be drawn firmly and publicly.

The New York Post report framed the controversy as a microcosm of the broader struggle over New York’s identity: a city where ideological clashes over Israel, socialism, and public funding now play out not only in campaign rallies but in community centers, council chambers, and nonprofit budgets.

As the 2025 mayoral race unfolds, disputes like these are likely to intensify. For Vernikov, the battle lines are clear: organizations that engage with Zohran Mamdani or other “Hamas sympathizers” will not receive her discretionary support. For Appel, dialogue remains a vital tool to reduce animosity, even if it generates political backlash.

The question facing New York is whether nonprofits, already navigating tight budgets and increasing demands, can remain above the fray — or whether the city’s political battles will continue to seep into every corner of civic life.

What is certain is that the symbolic power of a single handshake can ignite fierce disputes over loyalty, morality, and money in a city where politics is never far from personal identity.