By J. Simpson
Editor’s note: The opinions expressed here are those of the authors. View more opinions on ScoonTV
On a chilly night in early November, as results rolled in at a campaign watch party in Queens, a group of young Jewish volunteers wrapped in “Jews for Mamdani” T-shirts erupted in cheers. Some had spent weeks canvassing for Zohran Mamdani, a candidate whose positions on Israel and Palestine alarmed many older Jewish voters – yet these supporters insisted they saw in him a champion for housing equity, racial justice, and immigrant rights. How does this support align with Mamdani’s vocal condemnation of Israel, though? What does it say about the somewhat incoherent, sometimes hypocritical state of our current politics? Might it even signal that voters are finally becoming more willing to consider nuance at the ballot box?
Many of Mamdani’s Jewish supporters come from progressive, activist-oriented groups that emphasize social justice over traditional political alignments on Israel. Jews for Racial & Economic Justice (JFREJ) became one of his most vocal defenders, condemning what it called Islamophobic attacks during the campaign and urging solidarity across marginalized communities. The group said “tens of thousands of Jewish New Yorkers” volunteered or participated in outreach for the campaign.
Other organizations, including Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) Action and Bend the Arc: Jewish Action, mobilized canvassers in Jewish neighborhoods to build support for Mamdani. Reporting from Al Jazeera described these groups as part of an “unlikely coalition” that helped broaden Mamdani’s base beyond Muslim, Arab, and progressive voters.
Some of Mamdani’s detractors are using his stance on Israel as a symbol of his disingenuousness. His critics use his support for the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement and his skepticism of Israel’s identity as a Jewish state. The Times of Israel documented his statements framing BDS as a “nonviolent” tool of international accountability and his preference for equal rights over ethnonational identity.
Concerns mounted among mainstream institutions. The Anti-Defamation League launched a monitoring effort shortly after his election, warning that his associations and ideological positions required close attention. Yet, centrist and left-leaning Jewish groups, such as J Street, IfNotNow, and Bend the Arc, publicly welcomed the new mayor, encouraging excitement rather than alarm.
Polling reveals a community deeply split. A survey reported by JTA found that 60 percent of Jewish voters felt less safe with Mamdani in office, while 37 percent still supported him. Another poll by Zenith Research and Public Progress Solutions showed he led among Jewish voters overall, including 67 percent of Jewish voters aged 18–44.
Some rabbis urged caution. Rabbi Elliot Cosgrove of Park Avenue Synagogue called the support for Mamdani “totally bewildering,” citing “his anti-Zionist rhetoric and his intent to shut down research and economic partnerships between Israel and New York.” Meanwhile, Rabbi Rachel Timoner of Congregation Beth Elohim praised Mamdani’s willingness to engage with Jewish institutions, describing him as attentive and committed to dialogue even when disagreements remained.
The divisions extended into Orthodox communities. Reporting in The Times of Israel found that Satmar Hasidic leaders were split: one faction briefly endorsed Mamdani before others distanced themselves and backed his opponent, former governor Andrew Cuomo.
Even some skeptics, some leaders urged voters to remain open-minded. J Street president Jeremy Ben-Ami warned that heated rhetoric around Mamdani could deepen intra-Jewish divides and fuel Islamophobia, and that engagement may be a better long-term strategy.
Mamdani has made early efforts to address Jewish concerns. He pledged to appoint a senior adviser on antisemitism and create a Department of Community Safety dedicated to preventing hate crimes. After antisemitic graffiti was discovered at a Brooklyn Jewish school on election night, he issued a swift condemnation, saying,
“As Mayor, I will always stand steadfast with our Jewish neighbors.”
Yet the Mamdani election revealed more than campaign dynamics, community coalitions, or generational polling. It exposed what political scientist Samuel Abrams calls “two Jewish moral worlds.” In his analysis for the American Enterprise Institute, reprinted by The Algemeiner, Abrams argues that the election laid bare two distinct moral universes within American Jewry: one rooted in universalist ethics, the other grounded in group loyalty.
In neighborhoods such as Park Slope, Prospect Heights, and Clinton Hill – home to younger progressive and non-Orthodox Jews – Mamdani won overwhelming support, sometimes approaching 90 percent. Abrams attributes this to a moral worldview shaped by values of empathy, fairness, and global solidarity. For these voters, Judaism functions as a moral framework that prioritizes justice for marginalized groups, including Palestinians. Supporting Mamdani becomes, in this view, an expression of Jewish ethical duty rather than a repudiation of Jewish collective concerns.
In more traditional precincts like the Upper East Side, Crown Heights, or Borough Park, voters favored Cuomo decisively. Abrams describes these communities as emphasizing loyalty, continuity, and the preservation of the Jewish people as a distinct and historically vulnerable collective. For these voters, Mamdani’s positions on Israel, Zionism, and protest rhetoric signal potential threats to Jewish communal safety and identity. The result is not just political disagreement, but a clash of morals.
Abrams situates this split within Jonathan Haidt’s moral foundations theory. Universalist Jews rely more heavily on moral foundations of care and fairness, while particularist Jews emphasize loyalty, authority, and sanctity. The Mamdani election, Abrams argues, shows that American Jews no longer share a coherent moral language for discussing Israel, antisemitism, or political belonging. Communal institutions that once bridged these differences, like synagogues, federations, and cultural centers, are increasingly having difficulty bridging these two moral worlds.
This fragmentation has real consequences. When one segment of the community sees supporting Mamdani as an ethical obligation and another sees it as a threat to Jewish safety, finding shared political ground becomes nearly impossible. Abrams suggests that the future of Jewish civic life may require a form of “moral bilingualism,” in which leaders learn to speak both the language of empathy and the language of obligation. Only by doing so, he argues, can the community navigate the fractures that Mamdani’s election exposed – fractures that were forming long before voters cast their ballots.
Mamdani’s victory has therefore become a weathervane not only for generational change, but for understanding the evolving moral meaning of being Jewish in America. Whether his administration can bridge these competing visions remains to be seen. What is clear is that his election forced conversations within Jewish communities that leaders across the political spectrum acknowledge were long overdue.
Curtis Scoon is the founder of ScoonTv.com Download the ScoonTv App to join our weekly livestream every Tuesday @ 8pm EST! Support true independent media. Become a VIP member www.scoontv.com/vip-signup/ and download the ScoonTv App from your App Store.
