Published July 26, 2025
Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro says Mamdani leaves ‘space for extremists’
Zohran Mamdani’s Israel/Palestine Positioning
-
Mamdani, a progressive New York Assembly member and recently nominated Democratic mayoral candidate, has a long record of criticizing Israeli government policies. He supports the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, has declined to endorse Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state (though he has affirmed the country’s right to exist with equal rights for all citizens), and has introduced legislation targeting funding of West Bank settler activities.
-
In June 2025, during a podcast appearance, Mamdani was asked about provocative slogans like “Globalize the Intifada” and “From the river to the sea.” While denouncing antisemitism in general, he initially refused to explicitly condemn the phrases, framing them as symbolic expressions of Palestinian liberation rooted in human rights advancement.
Rising Pushback from Democrats
-
Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, in a recent interview with Jewish Insider, sharply criticized Mamdani for not clearly condemning what he described as “blatantly antisemitic” rhetoric from some of his supporters and allies — especially the use of such slogans. Shapiro emphasized that leaders must act with “moral clarity” and cannot allow hate speech to “just sit there”.
-
Shapiro acknowledged Mamdani’s campaign energized many New Yorkers, especially on affordability messaging, but warned that leaving space for extremist language undermines moral leadership and emboldens antisemitic actors.
Support and Defense
-
Brad Lander, the outgoing NYC Comptroller and a Jewish Democrat, strongly defended Mamdani, arguing that he won broad support from New York Democrats, including many Jewish voters. Lander pushed back against Shapiro’s framing, warning that criticism from out-of-state Democrats “feeds Trump’s narrative” and doesn’t help keep Jewish communities safe.
-
Notable party leaders such as Sen. Chuck Schumer, Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, and Gov. Kathy Hochul have condemned extremist language like “Globalize the Intifada” but have nonetheless declined to endorse Mamdani as of now.
📌 Key Issues at Stake
| Issue | Details |
|---|---|
| Antisemitic slogans | Mamdani did not initially condemn, but later clarified that he discourages the use of “Globalize the Intifada” after meeting with Jewish leaders. |
| Party unity at risk | Prominent Democrats express wariness, reflecting concern over broader implications heading into midterms and the 2028 cycle. |
| Public safety & extremism | Critics argue Mamdani’s ambiguous language leaves room for extremists and may heighten risks to NYC’s diverse Jewish community. |
Mamdani has faced widespread backlash over his past anti-Israel commentary and initial refusal to condemn the “Globalize the intifada” phrase.
Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro on Wednesday bashed Zohran Mamdani for failing to condemn the “blatantly antisemitic” rhetoric being spewed by his Israel-bashing supporters.
Resulting Effects:
1. Deepening Democratic Party Divisions
Mamdani’s stance has exposed growing fractures within the Democratic Party between progressive activists and more centrist or traditional figures. While younger, left-leaning voters applaud his unapologetic support for Palestinian rights, many mainstream Democrats view his refusal to swiftly denounce extremist language as a liability—fueling internal conflicts over the party’s direction on Israel, antisemitism, and identity politics.
2. Withholding of Key Endorsements
Prominent Democratic leaders—including Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, and New York Governor Kathy Hochul—have so far declined to endorse Mamdani. Their silence sends a strong signal of hesitation and could leave his campaign without crucial institutional backing as November approaches.
3. Jewish Voter Concerns Intensify
Mamdani’s handling of slogans like “Globalize the Intifada” has alarmed segments of New York’s Jewish community, particularly those sensitive to the historical and violent connotations of such phrases. Community leaders have expressed fears that ambiguous messaging from public officials may embolden extremists and make Jewish residents feel less safe.
4. Republican Messaging Fuel
The controversy is being seized upon by conservative voices and media as evidence of a broader Democratic drift toward radicalism. GOP figures and outlets like Fox News have warned that Mamdani’s rise reflects a party increasingly tolerant of antisemitic undertones—an argument likely to be amplified in national Republican campaigns.
5. Strengthening of Mamdani’s Progressive Base
Paradoxically, the firestorm has also galvanized Mamdani’s core supporters. Progressive groups, youth organizers, and left-wing activists have rallied around him, framing the criticism as an establishment-led smear campaign meant to silence Palestinian solidarity and grassroots movements. For many in his base, Mamdani’s refusal to back down is seen as principled, not reckless.
6. Shifts in National Conversation
The dispute has sparked a wider debate about what constitutes antisemitism versus legitimate criticism of Israel, particularly among Democrats. It has also raised questions about political speech, protest language, and the boundaries of free expression in campaigns—and whether the Democratic Party can hold together its ideological coalition heading into future elections.
Bottom Line: A Dangerous Shift or a Wake-Up Call?
Zohran Mamdani’s rise within the Democratic Party—and the party’s refusal to immediately and forcefully reject his rhetoric—signals a troubling shift in the American political landscape. When calls to “Globalize the Intifada” and “From the river to the sea” are rationalized as mere activism rather than condemned as threats, it’s not just political cowardice—it’s a betrayal of the moral clarity that once defined American leadership.
By failing to draw a firm line against extremism, Democrats risk normalizing antisemitic sentiment under the guise of social justice. While Mamdani’s defenders cloak his positions in language about rights and liberation, critics argue that turning a blind eye to inflammatory slogans only emboldens radicals and puts Jewish communities at risk. This isn’t just about words—it’s about the consequences of empowering ideologies that flirt with violence and division.
If the Democratic Party cannot summon the courage to reject this rhetoric outright, then voters may be forced to ask: just how far is the Left willing to go, and at what cost to national unity, public safety, and America’s moral compass?
