Mamdani’s Choice to Lead Antisemitism Office Previously Slammed Public Support for Israel After Hamas Attacks

By: Fern Sidman

New York City, a metropolis that has long prided itself on its pluralism and its capacity to absorb difference without dissolving into discord, now finds itself in the grip of a profound moral and civic unease. The appointment of Phylisa Wisdom as executive director of the Mayor’s Office to Combat Antisemitism has unfolded against the backdrop of a troubling surge in anti-Jewish hate crimes, a reality documented in sobering detail by The New York Post. As The New York Post has reported, the city recorded a staggering 182 percent increase in antisemitic incidents compared with the same period the previous year, a figure that has reverberated through synagogues, schools, and community centers with the force of an alarm bell that few can afford to ignore.

In such a climate, leadership choices carry a weight that transcends the ordinary rhythms of municipal governance. They become symbolic gestures, interpreted by communities not merely as administrative decisions but as statements of moral orientation. It is precisely here, at the intersection of symbolism and substance, that Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s decision to elevate Wisdom has provoked a cascade of anxieties, many of them articulated through the pages of The New York Post. The controversy is not simply about the content of Wisdom’s past social media statements, though these have become flashpoints of public debate; it is about the deeper question of whether a figure so visibly aligned with a particular ideological camp can credibly serve as a unifying steward for a citywide effort to confront antisemitism in all its manifestations.

The New York Post report on Saturday has brought renewed attention to a 2021 exchange in which Wisdom reacted sharply to then-mayoral candidate Andrew Yang’s public expression of solidarity with Israelis facing rocket attacks from Hamas. Yang’s message, in which he declared that New Yorkers would stand with “our brothers and sisters in Israel who face down terrorism and persevere,” was met by Wisdom with a tone of incredulity. She wrote that she was “floored” by the statement, framing her response as the voice of an American Jew who expected New York’s leaders to adopt a more confrontational posture toward what she characterized as “state-sanctioned violence” against Palestinians.

The timing of the remark, as The New York Post report emphasized, coincided with an 11-day barrage of rockets that claimed the lives of Israeli civilians. For many readers, the juxtaposition was jarring, raising questions about moral symmetry in moments when civilians are targeted by non-state actors.

This episode has assumed an outsized significance in the current debate, not merely because of its content but because of what it suggests about interpretive frames. Critics, quoted by The New York Post, argue that leadership in the fight against antisemitism requires an ability to articulate empathy for Jewish vulnerability without qualifying it through ideological prisms that risk diluting the urgency of that empathy. The concern is not that one cannot hold nuanced views about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but that a public official tasked with safeguarding Jewish communities must be especially attuned to how expressions of solidarity with Jews under attack are received and framed. In moments of crisis, moral clarity is often valued over rhetorical complexity.

The New York Post has also resurfaced an earlier social media post from 2009 in which Wisdom appeared to joke about having missed Yom Kippur, the most solemn day in the Jewish liturgical calendar. While such a remark might be dismissed by some as youthful irreverence, its reemergence in the present controversy has taken on symbolic resonance. For many observers, the comment gestures toward a casualness about Jewish ritual life that seems discordant with the sensitivities demanded of someone entrusted with confronting antisemitism not only as a political problem but as a cultural and religious injury. The cumulative effect of these resurfaced remarks, The New York Post report suggests, has been to deepen skepticism among segments of the Jewish community already wary of the mayor’s ideological leanings.

Wisdom’s professional background further complicates the picture. As The New York Post report noted, she previously led the New York Jewish Agenda, a progressive organization that positions itself as both Zionist and critical of Israeli government policies, particularly with respect to military actions in Gaza. The organization’s funding streams, which include support from major philanthropic institutions as well as foundations associated with progressive causes, have become fodder for critics who perceive in this network of affiliations a worldview that situates Jewish communal concerns within a broader, and often more adversarial critique of Israeli policy.

While Wisdom herself has described her outlook as that of a “liberal Zionist” committed to a two-state solution, detractors argue that the tenor of her public interventions has too often echoed the rhetoric of movements that are, at best, ambivalent about Israel’s legitimacy as a Jewish state.

The mayor’s own political posture has amplified these concerns. The New York Post has chronicled how Mamdani’s first weeks in office have been marked by turbulence, including criticism from mainstream Jewish organizations uneasy with a pattern of rhetorical indulgence toward slogans and movements that many Jews experience as threatening. In this context, the appointment of Wisdom has been read by some as an extension of an ideological project rather than a recalibration toward broader communal consensus. One city official, speaking anonymously to The New York Post, lamented that at a moment of acute vulnerability for Jewish New Yorkers, the city required leadership that would “unite, not divide,” and that the selection of a figure already encircled by controversy risked undermining public trust in an office designed to confront hate.

The departure of Moshe Davis, the office’s founding director under the previous administration, has sharpened the sense of institutional rupture. The New York Post reported that Davis had issued warnings about the need for enhanced security at houses of worship, warnings that, in hindsight, appear prescient in light of subsequent violent incidents near prominent Jewish institutions. Davis himself, quoted by The New York Post, expressed unease about what he characterized as a tendency among some liberal Zionists to grant excessive latitude to anti-Israel rhetoric in the name of progressive universalism.

His remarks, framed in familial metaphors about caring for one’s own community, resonated with those who fear that the language of inclusivity can sometimes obscure the particular vulnerabilities of Jewish life in moments of heightened threat.

Mayor Mamdani, for his part, has defended his choice in language that emphasizes diversity and effectiveness. In a statement carried by The New York Post, he described Wisdom as a “principled and effective leader” and expressed confidence that she would help build a city in which Jewish New Yorkers feel “safe, seen, and able to thrive.” Such assurances have yet to assuage the anxieties of those who perceive a disjunction between rhetoric and record.

The concern articulated by critics is not that Wisdom lacks intelligence or organizational skill, but that her ideological commitments, honed within the ecosystem of progressive activism, may render her ill-suited to the delicate task of bridging divides within a Jewish community that is itself ideologically heterogeneous but united in its fear of rising antisemitism.

What emerges from The New York Post’s sustained coverage is a portrait of a city at a crossroads, struggling to reconcile its progressive aspirations with the particularistic needs of a community confronting an ancient hatred in modern guises. The appointment of an antisemitism czar, in such circumstances, becomes a mirror in which broader tensions are reflected: between universalist ethics and communal solidarity, between critical engagement with Israeli policy and empathetic responsiveness to Jewish vulnerability, between ideological coherence and pragmatic coalition-building.

The ultimate measure of Wisdom’s tenure will, of course, lie in outcomes rather than in tweets. If the Mayor’s Office to Combat Antisemitism succeeds in reversing the upward trajectory of hate crimes, strengthening security at vulnerable institutions, and fostering a climate of trust across ideological lines, skepticism may give way to cautious endorsement. Yet The New York Post report underscores a fundamental truth of political symbolism: leadership in moments of crisis is as much about perception as it is about policy. When communities feel under siege, they look not only for competent administrators but for figures who can embody, without equivocation, a shared moral horizon. Whether Phylisa Wisdom can transcend the controversies that now envelop her and inhabit such a role remains an open question—one whose answer will shape not only the future of a mayoral office but the contours of New York’s ongoing struggle to remain a city where difference does not devolve into danger.