Zohran Mamdani, set to have his mayoral election certified on November 7, 2023, has publicly expressed his opposition to the existence of Israel as a Jewish state. His comments have ignited discussions about the legal foundations supporting Israel’s legitimacy, particularly in light of international law. Mamdani’s position suggests that he does not accept the legal framework that established Israel, a framework rooted in significant historical events.
On November 29, 1947, the United Nations voted in favor of creating a Jewish state from the British Mandate of Palestine. This historic vote resulted in Resolution 181, which passed with 33 votes in favor, 13 against, and 11 abstentions. The resolution called not only for a Jewish state but also for an Arab state in Palestine. However, the Arab nations rejected the partition plan, leading to conflict following the end of the British Mandate and the establishment of Israel on May 15, 1948.
Resolution 181 explicitly mentions “Jew” or “Jewish” 47 times, highlighting the UN’s recognition of the Jewish right to self-determination. Following Israel’s declaration of independence, then-President Harry Truman stated, “This Government has been informed that a Jewish state has been proclaimed in Palestine, and recognition has been requested by the provisional Government thereof.” Truman’s administration recognized the provisional government of Israel as the de facto authority of the new state, solidifying Israel’s status under international law.
In recent events, Mamdani’s spokeswoman addressed protests at an Upper East Side synagogue, where demonstrators voiced their opposition to a Jewish immigration initiative. The protesters were heard chanting inflammatory slogans, prompting Mamdani’s office to assert that “these sacred spaces should not be used to promote activities in violation of international law.” This statement raises questions about the legality of Jewish immigration to Israel, which is not recognized as a violation of international law by most global entities.
Mamdani claims to advocate for Palestinian rights but appears to oppose the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel as envisioned in the 1947 resolution. His rhetoric suggests a desire for a Palestinian state to replace Israel entirely rather than coexist with it. This perspective places him at odds with the principles outlined in Resolution 181 and the prevailing international consensus, including recognition from many Arab nations and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).
The ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas has intensified discussions surrounding Mamdani’s views. His statements have drawn ire from various quarters, especially when he has accused Israel of committing genocide and violating human rights, framing his criticisms within a broader anti-Israel narrative. This has led to accusations that his stance is not merely against specific policies but against the existence of Israel itself.
Mamdani’s views are emblematic of a larger debate over the legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state. Critics argue that denying Israel’s right to exist undermines international law and the historical context that led to its establishment. As the mayor-elect prepares to assume office, his stance on Israel may continue to provoke significant dialogue and dissent.
The issue at hand is not merely one of political opinion but touches on deep historical, legal, and moral questions regarding national identity and self-determination. Mamdani’s position challenges the accepted narrative of international law and the legitimacy of Israel, presenting a significant point of contention as he steps into his new role.
