In a recent ABC appearance, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani reiterated his conviction that he could not support “any state that privileges one religion over the other” in response to the question of whether he would support “Israel as a Jewish state.”
Variations of this question have been posed to him multiple times before, most notably during that infamous Democratic Party primary debate, where he was the only candidate on stage to refuse to name Israel as his “first foreign visit” if elected. Mamdani’s commitment to the fundamental principle of equality for all has thus earned him many adversaries, and some of them seem to have developed a habit of casually accusing him of using “blatant anti-Semitic language,” as Israel’s Ambassador to the United Nations, Danny Danon, did just a couple of weeks ago, referring to Mamdani’s entirely accurate criticism of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
Danon’s intervention to prevent anti-Semitism from taking hold in American politics in this manner is not unique. In fact, such interventions are ubiquitous. Israeli Cabinet ministers, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu himself, frequently invoke their “right to defend” themselves by attacking public figures from all around the world, blaming them for prejudicing the safety of the Jewish people living in their jurisdictions. And they utilize this fantastical right to intimidate their targets, often quite successfully. Governments generally respond to their capricious concerns, no matter how ridiculous those concerns may be.
Naturally, others ask: What about our concerns? What about the concerns of Muslims living in jurisdictions that are becoming increasingly hostile toward them, for example? And what about the public figures who constantly espouse the vilest forms of Islamophobia? Don’t they deserve the same kind of warnings that those who apparently hurt the feelings of Israel’s most ardent supporters constantly receive? A sitting member of the U.S. Congress compares Muslims to dogs, yet no Danon-like figure raises any objection. The richest man on earth promotes a horrendous film in which the protagonist proudly murders the entire family of a criminal immigrant of Muslim background. Yet, no public statement of condemnation is issued by those of comparable standing within the Muslim world. Real concerns, not artificial ones, seem to be largely dismissed.
Today, the very existence of Muslims is presented as a threat, and this, in turn, threatens their existence. They are under threat in both the West and the East, mostly from the same powerful actors. The very legitimacy of the term “Islamophobia” is questioned, and even ridiculed, by those who really consider Muslims inferior, and those inferior Muslims are then blamed for “the rise in anti-Semitism” in the West. Of course, Muslims know too well that “the rise in anti-Semitism” is driven not by their existence in the West, but by their destructive actions in the East. The question is: Where can they seek recourse?
Clearly, those who contribute in any way, shape, or form to the rise in Islamophobia in the West, regardless of where they are based, are beyond appeal. After all, it is their own making. Where else, then? Perhaps civil society, but even there, political calculations and competing interests get in the way. Those who contribute to the marginalization of Muslims possess the greatest capacity to define the terms of the debate, while Muslims themselves struggle merely to be heard. In such an environment, it is difficult to get people to see things straight.
Perhaps Muslims can seek recourse through institutions established to represent Muslim interests, including the governments of Muslim-majority countries. Some of these institutions have the diplomatic standing and collective voice necessary to challenge the prevailing anti-Muslim discourse. They can bring attention to injustices, defend the dignity of Muslim communities, and insist that the concerns of millions of people are treated as matters of international importance rather than dismissed as political inconveniences within a locality. What is lacking, however, is the same sense of urgency with which figures like Danon are willing to level accusations of anti-Semitism.
