Last week’s interview with Rabbi Moishe Indig and his endorsement of Zohran Mamdani generated an outpouring of responses

Last week’s interview with Rabbi Moishe Indig and his endorsement of Zohran Mamdani generated an outpouring of responses – some heated, some thoughtful, but all with concern for the future. Here is a sampling:

Safety Begins with Clear Red Lines › Rabbi Yaacov Behrman

With Mamdani’s victory, we find ourselves in both a difficult and unfamiliar position. On the one hand, we need to work constructively with the city, advocate for our community, and show respect for the office of the mayor. On the other hand, we must investigate where is the boundary between advocating for our community and inadvertently legitimizing behavior or language that endangers it. And when do the needs and the safety of our Jewish communities, and indeed of all New Yorkers, outweigh our need for access?

This situation is complex, and there are no simple answers. As a longtime askan, I have never experienced a moment like this.

There is an instructive precedent in a well-known letter from the Lubavitcher Rebbe, of blessed memory, to Alan Dershowitz regarding Senator Jesse Helms. Dershowitz had been upset that Chabad honored Helms. The Rebbe explained that Helms had merely attended the Education Day USA reception together with many members of Congress. He emphasized that branding elected officials with labels such as “anti-Semite” is often counterproductive, and wrote:

“My experience with such people has convinced me that politicians are generally motivated more by expediency than by conviction. In other words, their public pronouncements on various issues do not stem from categorical principles or religious imperatives. Hence, most of them, if not all, are subject to change in their positions, depending on time, place, and other factors.”

In time, Helms did change and ultimately became a friend.

But Mamdani may be different. His worldview predates his political career. These are not positions adopted for political gain, but long-standing ideological beliefs. People who know him from Albany and spent many hours in “friendly” conversation with him, including several individuals with whom I have spoken, were unable to shift his positions on the issues our community finds most objectionable.

During the period leading up to the election, every frum community, as well as prominent left-leaning Jewish leaders, declined to endorse him due to his refusal to condemn hateful  rhetoric and because of statements he made that crossed red lines. Many condemned his rhetoric explicitly. It was important to demonstrate, not only for this election but for future candidates, that this type of language cannot become acceptable in New York politics. Everyone understood that Mamdani would likely win,  but we believed that preserving moral clarity outweighed the value of political access and would ultimately have a greater impact on his behavior than an endorsement.

This is why I found last week’s interview with Rabbi Indig — a dear friend whom I have known and worked with for two decades — so troubling.

Rabbi Indig is certainly not naïve. He stated openly that Mamdani sought his endorsement primarily to appear acceptable at a time when many of his statements had caused deep concern. It had nothing to do with votes; it was about projecting legitimacy.

I was told by a senior diplomat with close ties to President Trump that before meeting Mamdani, the president noted the Satmar endorsement to his staff.

Rabbi Indig is not the only Jewish leader who requires access in order to advocate for his community. Many prominent secular Jewish leaders refused to endorse. They were also at risk of losing access. The message that was unintentionally conveyed by the Satmar endorsement was that the frum community valued access more than its responsibility to the broader New York Jewish community. For those of us who work as askanim and care deeply about communal dignity, this perception was painful.

I firmly believe that any improvement in Mamdani’s rhetoric or policies that may occur in the future will happen despite the endorsement, not because of it. Offering legitimacy without requiring substantive change weakens our community’s ability to draw the boundaries we critically need.

The shifts in tone that have occurred so far did not result from warmth or ideological persuasion. They occurred because the media and New York leaders had expectations regarding acceptable speech. When 800 leaders issued a public letter warning that Mamdani posed a danger to the Jewish community, he announced that he would retain the police commissioner. Mamdani wishes to succeed as mayor and implement his policy agenda. He does not wish to be viewed as unwelcome in the Jewish community, as Rabbi Indig himself noted. Maintaining clarity regarding these boundaries is therefore critical.

As we move forward, we must be honest. Navigating this new reality will require thought and care, but moral clarity regarding what is acceptable and what cannot be legitimized is essential for the safety and future of our community. We must stand united and firm in defining these boundaries, while continuing to show respect for the office of the mayor.

I agree with Rabbi Indig on one point: Now that he has endorsed Mamdani, he has a unique opportunity to hold him accountable and encourage change. That is why Rabbi Indig’s silence following the Park East Synagogue incident was troubling. If the endorsement is to have any constructive purpose, it must include a willingness to speak publicly when boundaries are crossed.

As a longtime friend of Rabbi Indig, I say this sincerely. We are relying on him. He now has credibility, influence, and responsibility. If lines are crossed again, I hope and trust that he will be the first to speak out, just as he endorsed.

Yaacov Behrman of Crown Heights is director of Operation Survival, Chabad public affairs liaison, and founder of JFA. The views expressed are his own.

Scarred and Hurt › E.S., Lakewood, NJ

I’m writing with profound pain after reading your recent article featuring an interview with Rabbi Indig regarding his endorsement of Zohran Mamdani. It’s deeply distressing to me that Mishpacha, a publication representing the sensitivities of the Torah-observant community, would grant such positive credence to a public figure whose record includes statements and positions that have caused anguish to so many Jews during a time of unprecedented hostility.

My pain is not theoretical. I’m a grandchild of Holocaust survivors, raised with the living memory of what it means when Jews misjudge the intentions of those who publicly oppose us.

I’m also affiliated with Satmar: my grandparents’ shadchan was the Divrei Yoel himself, who was also mesader kiddushin at their chasunah. My connection to Satmar is deep and personal, not political. Precisely because of that connection, I was shocked to see Rabbi Indig invoke the name of the Divrei Yoel in defense of an alliance with an individual who has publicly celebrated the suffering and deaths of our fellow Yidden.

The Divrei Yoel taught that galus requires humility and peaceful coexistence — but never at the cost of legitimizing those who seek to harm us. The Satmar Rav would walk out of meetings the moment he discovered a politician had acted against Jewish interests. To invoke his name in support of someone who aligns with those who glorify violence against Jews is a distortion of his teachings. When he spoke of “acclimating ourselves in galus,” he did not mean granting honor to individuals whose worldview is fundamentally hostile to the Jewish people.

“Acclimating” to galus does not mean sitting in a succah with someone who praises those who murder our brothers and sisters. It does not mean lending legitimacy to figures who stand publicly with movements that glorify Jewish suffering. It is painful to see a frum askan present such an alliance as if it reflects the legacy of a man who carried the tzaros of Klal Yisrael in every breath.

When making editorial decisions, please consider the profound hurt caused to many readers — especially those who, like me, carry the memories and scars of generations who experienced the consequences of trusting those who wished us harm. Mishpacha has always been a publication that champions the sensitivities of Klal Yisrael. I hope it continues to do so, especially in these fearful and vulnerable times.

Not Holding My Breath › Y. R., Brooklyn, NY

I have to admit that I found your interview with Moishe Indig very persuasive. I think we are all looking for some trace of optimism for the future of the Jewish community of NYC. However, I did take issue with some of his points.

He says that “you have to take the whole picture into account” and that he doesn’t involve himself in foreign affairs or international politics, just what is in the “best interests of our community now.” Does he think that the chant of many of Mamdani’s supporters to “globalize the intifada,” which promotes exporting violence against Jews around the globe, is in our community’s best interest?

What about the “not on our dime” legislation that Mamdani proposed as assemblyman, to strip tax-exempt status from Jewish charities that send money to Israel? (Incidentally, it was co-sponsored by none other than Emily Gallagher, the assemblywoman from Williamsburg who Indig called an “invaluable asset” to our community.) It was a bill all 48 Assembly Republicans denounced as “utterly vicious,” writing as such: “This bill seeks to penalize non-profit entities that have any affiliation with the state of Israel and is effectively an attack on Jews and Israel,” and “As Americans, we find this bill to be not only discriminatory but also deeply anti-Semitic.”

What about the mayor-elect’s stated plan to release most prisoners from jail and defund the police? Will our friend Mr. Mamdani’s “open door policy” or Indig’s “seat at the table” help our community navigate the results of those actions?

Indig was probably right when inferring that Cuomo would abandon our community after getting elected, but I don’t agree with his belief that Mamdani isn’t more of an anti-Semite than Cuomo or “any other politician in New York.” I don’t recall Cuomo or too many other elected officials publicly making openly anti-Semitic statements or advocating for anti-Israeli regulations like Mr. Mamdani has made. I pray that all of the “super-PACs” that tried to convince me of Mamdani’s evil intentions were wrong, but I’m not holding my breath.

Seed of Hope › R.F.

The interview with Rabbi Moshe Indig was fascinating.  The fact that not one New York Republican legislator sided with the yeshivos was an eye opener, and emphasizes the need for what Rabbi Indig termed “a seat at the table” that requires ongoing relationships. Now that Mamdani is the mayor-elect, dealing with him is not a choice. But the question that was not addressed remains: “Is there any scenario that would preclude supporting a candidate to begin with?”

Rabbi Indig recounts success with reaching out to Ed Day and Tony Cellini, suburban politicians who went from being difficult to being supportive.  That is like citing the economies of Sweden and Denmark in making economic policy for the United States.

Also, the status, challenges, and accommodations of Iranian and Turkish Jews and their relationships with their governments is not a viable model for New York. The glaring difference here is that an unapologetic Islamist with violent religious and social prejudice against Jews is going to be the mayor of the most famous city in the world with the greatest Jewish population.  That fact alone, besides inspiring other election takeovers, takes anti-Semitism from the streets to the halls of government, and gives cover, encouragement, and legitimacy to the enemies of the Jewish people here and abroad.

Is there any hope in this most unusual turn of events? Rabbi Yakov Astor, in another context, quoted a verse in Tehillim 92:8. “Bifroach resha’im kemo eisev, vayatzitzu kol poalei aven, l’hishamdam adei ad.”  Hashem allows the wicked to grow and flourish in order to utterly destroy them. We watch the global tsunami of anti-Semitism and its professional and powerful supporters with horror.  We cannot successfully combat the constant outpouring of lies and hatred. The only cure is for the movement to self-destruct.  And for that to happen, it has to go so far, that the majority of participants lose their taste for what they begin to recognize as evil. Perhaps the last presidential election is a case in point: Endless persecution of one man, opposed by many, boomeranged to the point of majority disgust and a great comeback.

“Lev melech b’Yad Hashem — the heart of a king is in the Hands of the Almighty.”  The speed, quantity, and quality of change recently is breathtaking. Many Jews have returned to their roots and we all fervently pray for the coming of Mashiach. Christians and Moslems have, each in their own way, ramped up their efforts to bring the “Messiah.” But, only the Jewish quest for the coming of Mashiach does not involve violence or proselytizing.  Rabbi Berel Wein ztz”l once described a meeting with a pastor taking a tour to Masada.  The pastor fell in step with Rabbi Wein and after speaking to him for a while commented, “You know Rabbi, we have a lot in common.”

Whereupon Rabbi Wein replied, “Yes, now we just have to stand back and see who is coming.”

The Mamdani Conundrum › Debbie Sreter

The three pieces in one issue dealing with Mamdani by Rabbi Zweibel, Gedalia Guttentag, and the interview with Rabbi Indig reflect the headlock position New York Jews are in. As Melanie Philips writes: “Mamdani intends to drive a wedge down the middle of the Jewish community by using anti-Zionist Jews as human shields to protect him from charges of anti-Semitism as he pursues his vendetta against Israel. New York Jews who denounce Israel will receive protection and favors; Jews who  are assumed to support Israel will be thrown to the wolves.”

Mishpacha has received a number of testimonials disputing, based on personal experience, the characterization of Thompson Town supervisor Tony Cellini as anti-Semitic early in his career. We should have presented that narrative in last week’s edition as an opinion, not a fact; we regret the error.

(Originally featured in Mishpacha, Issue 1089)