By: Fern Sidman

The Democratic nominee for mayor of New York City, Assemblymember Zohran Mamdani, is facing growing national backlash after pledging to abandon the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism if elected. His announcement, made in an interview with Bloomberg News last week, has already sparked sharp criticism from members of Congress, Jewish advocacy organizations, and civic leaders.

As reported on Thursday by The Algemeiner, lawmakers from both parties swiftly condemned Mamdani’s stance. Republican Rep. Mike Lawler of New York and Democratic Rep. Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey issued a rare joint statement on Wednesday, calling Mamdani’s proposal “dangerous” and “shameful.”

Their bipartisan denunciation underscores the deepening concern that rejecting IHRA — a definition embraced by dozens of U.S. states, more than 40 national governments, and countless institutions including the United Nations and European Union — would undermine efforts to confront an unprecedented surge in antisemitic violence across the United States.

Established in 2016, the IHRA working definition of antisemitism has become the most widely used benchmark for identifying and combating anti-Jewish hatred. According to the definition, antisemitism “is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews.” It provides eleven examples of how antisemitism manifests, ranging from classic tropes about Jewish power to modern iterations such as Holocaust denial, vandalism of synagogues, and delegitimization of the State of Israel.

As The Algemeiner report highlighted, IHRA’s significance lies in its specificity. It explicitly names demonization of Israel, the denial of its right to exist, and holding it to double standards as examples of antisemitism. For Jewish leaders and policymakers, that clarity has been invaluable in drawing the line between legitimate political criticism and rhetoric that veers into antisemitic hate.

New York City Mayor Eric Adams codified IHRA into city policy earlier this year through an executive order. Mamdani’s vow to reverse that order if elected would mark a dramatic departure from both local precedent and the global consensus.

“Walking away from IHRA is not just reckless — it undermines the fight against antisemitism at a time when hate crimes are spiking,” Rep. Lawler said, in remarks reported by The Algemeiner.

Rep. Gottheimer was equally pointed: “Dismantling the definition sends exactly the wrong message to Jewish communities who feel under siege.”

In their joint statement, the lawmakers drew a direct link between Mamdani’s rejection of IHRA and his broader political positions. They noted his support for the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement — which seeks to isolate Israel from the global community and whose leaders have openly called for Israel’s elimination. “Let’s be extremely clear: the BDS movement is antisemitic. Efforts to delegitimize Israel’s right to exist are antisemitic,” the lawmakers stated, as reported by The Algemeiner.

They also criticized Mamdani’s equivocation on the slogan “globalize the intifada,” a rallying cry widely understood as a call to expand violent Palestinian uprisings against Jews worldwide. “There are no two sides about the meaning of this slogan — it is hate speech, plain and simple,” Lawler and Gottheimer emphasized. “Given the sharp spike in antisemitic violence, families across the Tri-State area should be alarmed. Leaders cannot equivocate when it comes to standing against antisemitism and the incitement of violence against Jews.”

Mamdani, a democratic socialist representing a Queens district in the New York State Assembly, has long been one of the city’s most outspoken critics of Israel. In his remarks to Bloomberg News, he argued that the IHRA definition conflates antisemitism with political criticism of Israel, thereby stifling free speech. “I am someone who has supported and support BDS and nonviolent approaches to address Israeli state violence,” he said.

The Mamdani campaign later confirmed to the New York Post that his administration would not adopt IHRA but would instead align with former President Biden’s National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism, which emphasizes education, community engagement, and accountability. As a campaign spokesperson put it, the goal would be “to reverse the normalization of antisemitism and promote open dialogue.”

Yet, as The Algemeiner reported, civil rights organizations argue that without a clear definition like IHRA, those strategies lack teeth. The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and other watchdog groups have warned that antisemitic incidents in the U.S. have risen dramatically in the past two years, demanding a consistent and enforceable standard.

Mamdani’s position on IHRA adds another flashpoint to a mayoral race already drawing national attention. His upset victory in the Democratic primary against Mayor Adams stunned the city’s political establishment, placing a relatively little-known state legislator on the brink of becoming the first openly anti-Zionist mayor of New York City.

As The Algemeiner report noted, Mamdani’s platform has repeatedly challenged New York’s traditional support for Israel and its Jewish community. He has:

Endorsed the BDS campaign despite its stated goal of isolating and dismantling Israel.

Refused to explicitly recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state.

Claimed, without basis, that Israel does not provide equal rights for all its citizens.

Suggested he would order the NYPD to arrest Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu if he visits the city under an International Criminal Court warrant.

The IHRA controversy further solidifies his identity as a candidate willing to reject bipartisan norms and global standards in the name of progressive ideology.

For many Jewish organizations, IHRA’s adoption represented a watershed moment. After decades of struggling to define the contours of modern antisemitism, particularly in relation to discourse about Israel, the definition gave communities, educators, and law enforcement a unified tool.

As The Algemeiner report observed, IHRA has been embraced by governments across the ideological spectrum precisely because it provides flexibility — it is described as a “working definition” — while offering enough clarity to act against hate speech and violence. Its eleven examples address not only traditional antisemitism but also contemporary rhetoric that targets Israel as a proxy for Jews.

This is why Mamdani’s rejection has alarmed lawmakers like Lawler and Gottheimer. Without IHRA, they argue, antisemitic incidents framed as “political speech” risk going unchallenged.

The congressional response to Mamdani’s pledge comes as the House and Senate are debating the Antisemitism Awareness Act, which would formally codify IHRA into federal law.

Advocacy groups such as the ADL have urged passage, arguing that federal agencies and schools need a uniform standard to identify antisemitism and protect Jewish communities.

As The Algemeiner reported, Mamdani’s stance has now become part of this broader national conversation. His rejection of IHRA, juxtaposed with bipartisan congressional support for codifying it, illustrates the widening gap between progressive activists and mainstream policymakers on how to confront antisemitism.

Mamdani’s handling of the slogan “globalize the intifada” has drawn particular scrutiny. Over the summer, he defended the phrase by likening it to the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising of World War II, a comparison that Jewish leaders found deeply offensive. The slogan, rooted in calls for violent Palestinian uprisings, has been embraced by radical groups worldwide.

As The Algemeiner reported, Mamdani later attempted to walk back his endorsement, saying he would “discourage” its use. But for critics, that reversal was too little, too late. “Leaders cannot equivocate when it comes to standing against antisemitism and the incitement of violence against Jews,” Lawler and Gottheimer insisted in their statement.

Jewish civic leaders across New York have echoed the alarm raised by Congress. According to the information provided in The Algemeiner report, many see Mamdani’s platform as a direct threat to the city’s Jewish community, which numbers more than 1.6 million and represents the largest Jewish population outside of Israel.

The city has long prided itself on being a center of Jewish life and a stronghold of support for Israel. A mayor openly hostile to those values, community leaders fear, could embolden antisemitic actors and diminish protections at a time when anti-Jewish incidents are already at record highs.

Mamdani’s rise and the controversy over IHRA are part of a larger trend within the Democratic Party. While mainstream Democrats continue to affirm support for Israel and IHRA, progressive voices like Mamdani — echoing figures such as Rep. Rashida Tlaib and Rep. Ilhan Omar — have gained traction with younger and activist constituencies.

As The Algemeiner has frequently observed, this intra-party split poses challenges not only for Jewish communities but for U.S. foreign policy. At stake is whether America will continue to embrace consensus definitions and bipartisan strategies against antisemitism, or whether progressive skepticism will fragment the fight.

The firestorm surrounding Zohran Mamdani’s pledge to scrap the IHRA definition underscores the stakes of New York’s mayoral election and the national struggle against antisemitism.

As The Algemeiner report indicated, lawmakers from both parties view his stance as reckless, Jewish groups see it as a threat to their safety, and his critics connect it to a broader ideological campaign that undermines Israel’s legitimacy.

Mamdani, by contrast, frames his position as a defense of free speech and a rejection of what he views as conflation between criticism of Israel and hatred of Jews.

The battle over IHRA is more than a policy dispute. It is a contest over the very boundaries of antisemitism, the legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state, and the responsibility of American leaders to protect one of the nation’s most vulnerable minority communities.

As the debate intensifies, one fact is clear: New York’s mayoral election has become a national referendum on the fight against antisemitism itself.