(Jan. 2, 2026 / JNS) — In late November, as Jewish congregants and others walked into Park East Synagogue on Manhattan’s Upper East Side to attend an aliyah event held by the group Nefesh B’Nefesh, they were met with chants of “Globalize the intifada!” and “Death to the IDF!” Jewish organizations responded with understandable alarm. What unsettled many New Yorkers even more, however, was the subsequent response from the office of New York state assemblyman Zohran Mamdani, which suggested that the synagogue event itself had somehow misused a “sacred space” and broken international law.
This narrative matters; it signals how civic leaders interpret and respond to antisemitic intimidation.
Mamdani was sworn in as mayor on Jan. 1. Jewish New Yorkers will be listening to such statements carefully.
If that didn’t already strike a chord for New Yorkers, after the mass shooting during a Dec. 14 Chanukah event on Sydney’s Bondi Beach, the above framing should concern every New Yorker who cares about pluralism and religious freedom. We just saw where patterns of moral confusion and a lowered threshold for violence lead when left unchallenged. This is a moment when our local leaders should be carefully considering how they will avoid this path here at home.
In Australia, like many places where antisemitic violence has erupted, the Jewish community watched with mounting alarm as antisemitic threats and violence escalated while rhetoric from the prime minister’s office stigmatized Israel, normalized antisemitism and lowered the threshold for violence against Jews. All democracies face tests in how leaders set—or fail to set—clear social norms. In New York, where we continue to see an uptick in Jew-hatred and attacks, there are numerous opportunities to make those norms crystal clear.
Democracy depends on civil debate, dissent and the airing of grievances. But there is a moral and at times legal line distinguishing protest and persecution. When people are targeted for entering a house of worship or publicly celebrating their religion or identity, the failure to protect basic freedoms and civic norms teaches harassment as a stand-in for debate.
Civic leaders do more than manage policy; they model how a diverse society disagrees without dehumanizing. Constituents, among them young people, are watching not just what leaders say but how they respond when lines are crossed. They see how adults argue, listen, disagree and repair, and they take their cues from us.
When leaders collapse complex issues into identity politics, implying that Jewish institutions should be mistrusted simply for being Jewish institutions, they teach students the wrong lesson about pluralism and disagreement in a democracy. What is incompatible with democracy is rhetoric that treats Jewish institutions as inherently suspect or implies that Jewish gatherings must pass an ideological test to be considered legitimate.
And we all know where that logic leads.
Through the Museum of Tolerance, the Simon Wiesenthal Center’s educational team works with students across backgrounds to teach a different model: how to hold complexity without moral confusion. We teach that disagreement does not require dehumanization, that policies can be challenged without targeting people, and that rhetoric matters because it shapes behavior. This approach works because it is grounded in facts, empathy and clear boundaries.
Those boundaries matter now. When antisemitic chants are minimized as mere “expression” while Jewish institutions are scrutinized simply for existing, sacred spaces are lose their protection and young people learn the wrong lesson, that intimidation is just another form of speech.
Mamdani and other civic leaders have an opportunity to model a different path—one grounded in listening, learning and moral clarity. We can center open discourse, empathy and actual understanding rather than vitriol by condemning any rhetoric that invokes violence. We can set boundaries for protest that stop short of intimidating an entire identity group. We can insist that political dissent doesn’t result in diminishing the safety or rights of individuals. We can demand that what is unacceptable in one context is unacceptable in all contexts.
And if we apply these guidelines, then perhaps we can prevent the next round of hate and violence.
New Yorkers can add complexity and nuance to our discourse. When the Park East Synagogue protest occurred, the discussion was boiled down to simplistic statements stripped of context and understanding. Jewish gatherings often include discussions around Israel and peoplehood—topics rooted in centuries of Jewish history, collective memory, religious practice, exile, return and survival. When the public discourse approaches these conversations as if they are optional political activities rather central expressions of identity and continuity—and leaders entrusted with shaping civic norms cast those conversations as provocative or illegitimate—exclusion is in the offing.
Students, too, are capable of understanding complexity, and they deserve leaders who trust them with the full story, not just slogans. Engaging in civic life is not about picking sides. It is about choosing humanity, humaneness and being clear about where intimidation begins and dignity ends.
About the Simon Wiesenthal Center
The Simon Wiesenthal Center (SWC) is a global Jewish human rights organization that combats antisemitism, defends the State of Israel, and uses the lessons of the Holocaust to teach tolerance and combat hate. It holds consultative status at the United Nations, UNESCO, the OSCE, the Council of Europe, the OAS and the Latin American Parliament (PARLATINO). Headquartered in Los Angeles, the SWC operates in key centers of Jewish life including New York, Chicago, Florida, Toronto, Jerusalem, Vienna and Buenos Aires. To learn more, visit www.wiesenthal.org.
