Mamdani, Antisemitism, and a Stealth Correction by the New York Times
On January 4th the New York Times published an article by Liam Stack and others about the revocation of certain existing executive orders by New York’s new mayor, Zohran Mamdani.
One of the revocations undoes the City’s adoption of a “working definition” of antisemitism published by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (identified, oddly, only by its initials in the Times article).
This definition has been adopted by scores of countries and international organizations. It reads:
Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.
If the Mamdani regime has ever explained why this definition is intolerable to them, I’m not aware.
The Times described this as “a contentious definition of antisemitism that equated criticism of Israel with hatred of Jewish people”.
While the widely-adopted definition is, in my opinion, awkwardly phrased, it doesn’t mention Israel and there is certainly nothing there that comes anywhere close to equating criticism of Israel with hatred of Jews.
In fact, to ensure that there can be no confusion whatsoever on this point, the Alliance stipulates, immediately after the definition, that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”
As this couldn’t be clearer, the only uncertainly is whether the Times made an innocent, if bizarre, mistake, or whether their misrepresentation was part of a strategy to make the current mayor more palatable to their readers.
For if they were describing the IHRA definition accurately, of course it would be insupportable and Mamdani would be justified in distancing the City from it. But if it were a straightforward definition, considered acceptable by the EU and many other civilized governments, then its abjuration by the mayor would be consistent with his other activities that many see as signs of antisemitism, such as his longstanding support for the BDS movement.
The next day the Times made it quite clear that it was not an innocent mistake.
The Internet Archive reveals that From Jan 4th to Jan 5th the wording was altered subtly: “criticism” was changed to “some criticism”. Now the Times describes the IHRA definition as “a contentious definition of antisemitism that equated some criticism of Israel with hatred of Jewish people”.
Everyone knows that “some” criticism of Israel amounts to antisemitism. The IHRA gives an example: “Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.”
I don’t know if the Times or Mamdani understands that Holocaust denial is antisemitic, but nearly everyone else does. Several other examples are provided, all of which should be uncontentiously recognized as clear examples of antisemitism.
In any case, again, Israel is not mentioned in the definition; even if it were, that would not make it “contentious”.
The alteration was made silently, without one of their commendable, explicit correction notices. This is not a mere typo, but the addition of a word that changes the meaning completely; the stealthiness was a deliberate decision. It shows us that the misrepresentation of the IHRA definition was not some kind of unaccountable blunder (appearing in an article with four authors), but a calculated manipulation — one that they quickly decided needed some fine-tuning.
