Farley Weiss is the co-author, with Leonard Grunstein, of Because It’s Just and Right: The Untold Backstory of the U.S. Recognition of Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel and Moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, and a past president of the National Council of Young Israel.
(Oct. 14, 2026 / JNS)
It was hardly surprising that New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s administration declined to adopt a definition of antisemitism when announcing its plan to combat Jew-hatred.
Adopting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) working definition, endorsed in 2016 and subsequently adopted by more than 40 countries, would have raised uncomfortable questions about the mayor’s own anti-Zionist positions. Nor could the administration simply adopt the Nexus definition, which distinguishes anti-Zionism from antisemitism, without disregarding a definition supported by numerous Jewish organizations.
Instead, Mamdani’s administration chose not to adopt any definition. But how can a government effectively combat antisemitism if it refuses to establish what antisemitism is? New York’s Jewish community deserves more than general assurances; it deserves clear standards for recognizing and addressing antisemitic conduct.
This failure reflects a broader political campaign to redefine antisemitism and delegitimize Zionism.
For years, the international debate over Israel focused heavily on settlements and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Hamas-led terrorist attacks in southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, fundamentally challenged that framework. Hamas attacked communities inside Israel’s internationally recognized territory, not merely settlements. The attack made it impossible to explain the assault solely as a response to Israeli settlement policy.
Consequently, an increasingly prominent segment of the anti-Israel movement has focused on denying Israel’s legitimacy as a Jewish state. Separating anti-Zionism from antisemitism has become central to this effort, allowing opposition to Israel’s existence to be presented as an acceptable political position.
The Biden administration’s national strategy to counter antisemitism incorporated both the IHRA and Nexus frameworks without explicitly resolving the relationship between anti-Zionism and antisemitism. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) endorsed the strategy and was initially listed among its partners, a relationship that became controversial following public statements by CAIR leaders concerning Oct. 7.
Meanwhile, antisemitic harassment and intimidation intensified on American college campuses, particularly during the wave of anti-Israel encampments. The failure to establish clear standards for identifying antisemitism made it more difficult to distinguish legitimate political protest from the targeting of Jewish students because of their support for Israel.
The dispute over the IHRA definition has become increasingly partisan. The Antisemitism Awareness Act passed the U.S. House of Representatives by a vote of 320-91 but has faced opposition in the Senate, including objections to the IHRA wording.
The underlying disagreement concerns whether rejecting Israel’s existence as a Jewish state can be separated categorically from antisemitism.
Criticism of Israeli government policy is not inherently antisemitic, nor does every criticism of Zionism constitute hostility toward Jews. But denying Jews the right to national self-determination, particularly when other peoples are afforded that right, raises fundamental questions.
Mamdani, Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) and El-Sayed have all advanced positions critical of Zionism or the legitimacy of the Jewish state. Their positions raise questions about how the Democratic Party can maintain a credible commitment to fighting antisemitism while accommodating a movement that rejects the legitimacy of the world’s only Jewish state.
Appeals to international law are similarly problematic when they recognize national self-determination for other peoples but disregard the Jewish people’s historical and legal claims to Israel.
Another feature of the campaign against Israel has been the accusation that Israel is committing genocide in the Gaza Strip, accompanied by comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany.
Military analysts have challenged the characterization of Israel’s conduct as unprecedentedly indiscriminate. John Spencer, who led urban warfare studies at West Point, has argued that Israel undertook extraordinary measures to limit civilian casualties. Retired U.S. Gen. Jack Keane has emphasized Israel’s warnings to civilians, while British Col. Richard Kemp has argued that civilian-to-combatant casualty ratios in Gaza were unusually low by historical standards.
These assessments are disputed, and the precise casualty ratio remains difficult to establish independently. Nevertheless, the conduct of the war must be evaluated against evidence and established legal standards, rather than slogans. Genocide requires proof of specific acts and the requisite intent; civilian suffering, however grave, does not by itself settle the legal question.
The broader problem is the tendency to characterize anyone who supports Israel as complicit in genocide. Because mainstream Jewish organizations and a substantial majority of American Jews identify with Zionism, this rhetoric risks placing much of the Jewish community under suspicion.
The Trump administration has pursued aggressive measures against campus antisemitism, including immigration actions targeting certain foreign students involved in anti-Israel activism. Supporters argue that these measures have helped deter campus encampments; critics have raised concerns about free speech and due process. The distinction between protected political expression and unlawful harassment remains essential.
The Jewish community must confront antisemitism in a political environment where even its definition has become partisan.
The IHRA definition is not beyond discussion, and its adoption does not eliminate the need to distinguish antisemitism from legitimate criticism of Israel. But refusing to define antisemitism is no substitute for confronting it.
The fundamental question is whether the fight against antisemitism will include hostility expressed through the denial of Jewish national rights, or whether it will exclude anti-Zionist hostility from scrutiny.
New York’s Jewish community deserves a clear answer from its mayor. American Jews deserve the same from their political representatives. Fighting antisemitism requires more than declarations of good intentions. It requires the willingness to recognize it even when doing so is politically inconvenient.