Zohran Mamdani, winner of the New York City Democratic mayoral primary, speaks during a press conference at the United Federation of Teachers headquarters on July 9 in New York City. Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images
Has Zohran Mamdani’s victory in New York City’s Democratic mayoral primary proved what American Democrats living in Israel have long feared — that the party we have loyally supported is moving toward being indifferent to or hostile toward Jewish concerns?
I fear the answer is yes. The elevation of Mamdani, despite his refusal to denounce the slogan “Globalize the Intifada” and his ambiguous stance on Israel’s right to exist, signals to us — and to many Jewish voters — that there is little room in the party for those of us who see Zionism as a vital part of our liberal worldview.
Our experience living in Israel, combined with our deep commitment to Democratic values, gives us a unique vantage point to assess how progressive policies translate in a real-world Jewish context. And what we see is an environment in which anti-Israel politics are slowly but surely translating into local policymaking that is dangerously biased against Jews.
In large and small cities across the United States, we are witnessing an alarming trend: Governmental resolutions often framed as pro-Palestinian increasingly carry undertones — or explicit language — that alienate Jewish citizens and misrepresent Zionism. Resolutions that ignore Jewish historical trauma, erase Jewish peoplehood, or single out Israel in global conflicts contribute to a hostile civic climate — even when their sponsors claim to promote human rights.
In Dearborn, Mich., a 2024 city resolution urged divestment from companies allegedly supporting the Israeli occupation of the West Bank. It described Zionism as a form of colonialism; failed to acknowledge Jewish historical claims to the land of Israel; and made no reference to Hamas terrorism.
In Berkeley, Calif., this past April, a city council resolution included no mention of Hamas terrorism, the group’s vitriolic antisemitism, or the long history of Palestinians rejecting Israeli proposals for a two-state solution — effectively painting Jews as oppressors with no historical or religious ties to the land. Local Jewish residents, including progressive ones, described it as “dehumanizing” and “deliberately inflammatory.”
In Oakland, Calif., a November 2023 city council resolution supporting a ceasefire in Gaza included lines accusing Israel of “genocide” while remaining silent on the Oct. 7, 2023 Hamas massacre. Jewish members of the community were booed and jeered at for dissenting.
In Chicago, a city council debate on a Gaza ceasefire resolution in January 2024 grew so divisive that multiple Jewish aldermen publicly withdrew support, citing the resolution’s failure to condemn Hamas, and its language accusing Israel of ethnic cleansing.
In San Francisco in 2021, the public school district faced backlash when its teachers’ union passed a resolution endorsing the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement that labeled Israel a “settler-colonial state” and advocated for educational materials that vilified Zionism. Jewish parents and teachers argued that it created a hostile learning environment for Jewish students.
In Seattle, the city council passed a 2023 resolution calling for a ceasefire in Gaza and condemning Israel’s military actions, without any mention of Hamas’ Oct. 7 attacks or the hostages still held in Gaza. The resolution used language like “Israeli apartheid” and “genocide,” which local Jewish leaders called inflammatory and exclusionary. The Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle condemned the resolution for “promoting dangerous tropes and excluding Jewish voices.”
These are not isolated incidents. Instead, they reflect a troubling trend: As progressives engage in increasing delegitimization of the Jewish state — as if you cannot criticize a government without calling for a country’s eradication — they normalize antisemitism under the guise of activism.
These local efforts — whether they manifest as anti-Israel resolutions, antisemitic education materials, or the election of openly anti-Israel politicians — do not remain confined to city halls. They reflect and shape the national political climate. They legitimize hostility toward Jewish identity and Zionism under the guise of progressivism.
If unchallenged, these developments could steer the Democratic Party — and American politics more broadly — toward a dangerous place, where Jewish voices are marginalized, and ideological purity negates pluralism and historical truth.
In spaces where the Democratic Party’s leftward drift is most apparent, Zionism is treated as fundamentally incompatible with liberal values — a narrative that deeply unsettles those of us who, like most Democrats in Israel, support liberal domestic policies in the U.S. while maintaining strong ties to Israel and Zionism.
The truth is that progressive demands for systemic reform cannot come at the expense of Jewish identity and security concerns. Jewish voters provide a crucial moral and ideological compass for the Democratic Party. We are deeply invested in its success. If we cannot continue that investment, due to ruptures like those triggered by the Mamdani campaign, both the Democratic Party and the progressive values it champions will suffer.
If the party values its Jewish base, it must act decisively to ensure safe spaces for Jewish identity within progressive coalitions, in part by signalling an understanding that support for Israel does not preclude support for social justice.
The Democratic Party stands at a critical juncture. Its progressive wing has injected energy and bold ideas into national and local conversations. But it has also introduced rhetoric and positions that risk fracturing its traditional coalition.
For American Democrats in Israel, who embody both liberal values and a deep connection to Jewish peoplehood and the state of Israel, this fracture is not theoretical. It is personal. We do not want to be forced to choose between our ideals and our identity. A party that claims to stand for inclusion must make space for the diverse expressions of Jewish life, including Zionism. If it fails to do so, it may find its most loyal allies drifting away — not out of ideology, but out of self-preservation.
