Zohran Mamdani, whose mayoral election will be certified on November 7, has openly expressed his views against the existence of Israel as a Jewish state. His statements have ignited significant debate regarding international law and Israel’s legitimacy. Mamdani often frames his position as being aligned with international legal standards, despite the fact that Israel’s status is rooted in international law itself.
The establishment of Israel as a Jewish state traces back to a pivotal moment on November 29, 1947, when the United Nations General Assembly voted on Resolution 181. This resolution, passed with a vote of 33 in favor, 13 against, and 11 abstentions, called for the creation of both a Jewish and an Arab state from the British Mandate of Palestine. The resolution explicitly mentions the terms “Jew” or “Jewish” 47 times, highlighting its focus on the establishment of a Jewish homeland.
Shortly after his election as mayor, Mamdani visited Flushing Meadows Park, near the Queens Museum, where the UN held its original sessions. During this visit, he announced his transition leadership. The Queens Museum is historically significant as the venue where the debate over Resolution 181 occurred.
After the British Mandate ended, the state of Israel was declared on May 15, 1948. U.S. President Harry Truman recognized Israel shortly thereafter, stating, “This Government has been informed that a Jewish state has been proclaimed in Palestine.” This recognition underscored Israel’s position as a legitimate state under international law.
Despite this historical context, Mamdani’s stance vehemently opposes Israel’s existence as a Jewish state. His comments were highlighted following a protest at an Upper East Side synagogue, where demonstrators expressed their opposition to an organization supporting Jewish immigration to Israel. A spokesperson for Mamdani stated that “these sacred spaces should not be used to promote activities in violation of international law,” reflecting his position on the matter.
Mamdani’s assertions about international law conflict with the consensus held by the majority of nations, including most Arab states, and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), which recognizes Israel’s right to exist as part of the peace process established by the Oslo Accords. Notably, the rejection of Resolution 181 by Arab states led to armed conflict following the establishment of Israel.
Critics argue that Mamdani’s views align more closely with extremist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, which deny Israel’s right to exist. His criticisms include accusations of human rights violations against Israel, which he has labeled as committing genocide.
Mamdani claims to support Palestinian rights, yet his vision appears to reject the notion of a Palestinian state coexisting alongside Israel. This perspective raises questions about his ultimate goals regarding the future of the region. His opposition extends beyond the current conflicts in Gaza and the West Bank to a broader rejection of Israel’s established boundaries.
In summary, Mamdani’s stance raises complex questions about historical legality and the recognition of Israel within the framework of international law. While he positions himself as pro-Palestinian, his views on the existence of Israel as a Jewish state deviate significantly from established international consensus. The ongoing debate surrounding his statements reflects the deep-rooted divisions that persist in discussions about Israel and Palestine, underscoring the challenges of achieving peace in the region.