Many hyperbolic and false claims, in both directions, have been made about the New York mayoral race and Zohran Mamdani’s victory.
Contrary to the campaign that smacks of McCarthyism launched by his opponents, he is not a communist nor a jihadist, nor is he a threat to Americans. And contrary to the narrative pushed by some of his supporters and admirers, he is not the symbol of a radical shift about to sweep through the United States, nor a crushing defeat of capitalism.
Tangible and quantifiable factors explain Mamdani’s success, including the deterioration of the city’s services and economy, which has led to a spike in the cost of living, broad discontent with President Donald Trump's policies and performance, and the ways in which Mamdani, who has many identities, reflects the pluralism of the city. Pluralism, as we know very well, has deep roots in a country which has traditionally been defined as a nation of immigrants but is now implementing immigration policies - particularly for "non-white" immigrants - that challenge this characterization.
Moreover, the victor successfully spoke to both the long-standing opposition politics of labor and newer opposition politics of identity and gender, as well as a desire for political and partisan change shared by many New Yorkers - a sentiment that brings with it hostility to portraying the strong and influential’s domination as something perpetual.
If there are reasons to doubt whether Mamdani can deliver on anything beyond the bare minimum of the changes he has promised, especially on the economic front, two things can be said with certainty: first, the city's younger and more educated voters are not content with the status quo and do not share Trump’s confidence that he is making "America great again." Second, the winner's success is a powerful testament to the health of American democracy, which some believe will be confirmed and validated by the Midterm elections. Accordingly, those who are keen on American democracy and broadening participation in the political process should replace their fearmongering with a more welcoming tone.
Another reason to welcome his victory is that the Israel-Palestine question now weighs on the American public, or at least the residents of New York, which, as per the cliche we are constantly reminded of, is home of the world’s largest Jewish population outside of Israel. The Gaza war has played a prominent role in this regard. Attitudes have changed, including among Jewish New York - a third of them voted for Mamdani according to a CNN exit poll, with younger and more educated Jewish New Yorkers twice as likely to give him their vote.
David Rosenberg, an Israeli writer for Haaretz, concluded his column last week with this: "These Jews who voted for Mamdani in New York were willing to set aside their tribal interests as well in the name of the values they believe in. Those values conflict with the values espoused by the current Israeli government, if not a great many Israelis. A similar trend among global Jewry could endanger the very relationship itself between Israel and the Jewish Diaspora."
The fact is that the Jewish state’s savagery under Netanyahu, whose war has far exceeded the bounds of self-defense and morphed into a genocide, is now increasingly anathema to global sensibilities, particularly those of young people. While its reputation for "strength" and "heroism" had benefited Israel since the 1967 war, painting an appealing picture of the country to the world, a show of force against the population and children of Gaza is not the same as a show of force against three armies and the leadership of Nasser, who had made the first move when he shut the Gulf of Aqaba. It seems that its "iron wall" mentality cannot be suited to the new mood, which is more sympathetic to the weak and anti-hero and more infuriated by impunity.
It seems that fostering this shift and rendering it fruitful demands changes that will not be easy to make, especially if the goal is for these shifts in public opinion - not just in New York, but in America and Europe - to translate to parliamentary seats. What is needed, first and foremost, is Palestinian leadership that engages with these new global trends and speaks their language.
Here lies the importance of attunement to pluralistic environments and freedoms of all kinds, and from there, of joining both the old and new progressive global consensus, starting with the condemnation of antisemitism. Pitting the Palestinian cause against freedoms that could contradict deeply rooted traditional cultures, or glorifying allies for whom "the damnation the Jews" is a key slogan, would be to offer the Palestinians a poisonous gift.
Fostering this global shift also calls for concerning ourselves with the struggles of others, whose solidarity we seek, as well as contributing to political life in Western countries whenever possible. We know that over the past few decades, when the principle that "positions on the Palestinian question determine our position on global questions," Arab and Palestinian pursuits have come to nothing.
Accordingly, considerable effort must be channeled toward identifying viable pursuits, turning the page on the kinds of overblown promises that Mamdani had made, or hinted at, during his election campaign, and the populism that came with it and comes with every election campaign in America.
It could be reasonable to argue that many steps of this sort could consummate the shift in Western public opinion, as well as push in the direction of humanizing capitalism and empowering the rule of law. However, presenting the New York mayoral election result as a crushing defeat for Israel, capitalism, the West, and "white identity" - saying things like, "we defeated them on their own turf" - does nothing more but add to an already saturated lexicon of idiocy.
