In the winter of 1789, French aristocrat Stanislas de Clermont-Tonnerre addressed the National Assembly with a proposition that would define the status of Jewish citizens for centuries to come. His decree was simple yet restrictive: “To the Jews as individuals, everything; to the Jews as a nation, nothing.” It was a bargain of emancipation in exchange for the disappearance of Jewish peoplehood.
Today, that historical bargain has resurfaced in New York City. Mayor Zohran Mamdani has announced he will not participate in the Israel Day Parade, breaking a 61-year tradition upheld by every sitting mayor of New York. While the city has committed to a full security plan and the police commissioner, Jessica Tisch, will serve as grand marshal, the mayor’s absence marks a significant departure in how the city engages with its Jewish community.
The implications of this decision are profound. By providing state-sanctioned protection for the “Jewish body” while declining to participate in a public celebration of the “Jewish people,” the mayor has effectively mirrored the 1789 ultimatum. Rabbi Joseph Potasnik of the New York Board of Rabbis summarized the significance of the event, stating, “It’s not a policy parade. It’s a Jewish people parade.”
Mamdani’s stance on the parade follows a series of previous actions that have signaled a similar approach. Upon taking office, he revoked executive orders that barred city agencies from boycotting Israel and adopting the IHRA definition of antisemitism—a move characterized by Israel’s Foreign Ministry as “antisemitic gasoline on an open fire.” the mayor has declined to recognize Israel as a Jewish state and did not participate in Israel’s Independence Day.
Defenders of the mayor may argue that these actions are rooted in political disagreements regarding Israeli policy. However, the nature of these events—specifically the parade—suggests a broader rejection of the collective identity of the Jewish community. Zionism, for the vast majority of Jews, represents the historical claim to existence as a people, rather than a singular political opinion.
The historical precedent for this “deal” is fraught with peril. In the case of 1789 France, the demand that Jews shed their peoplehood to achieve civic acceptance eventually led to a century of instability and failed promises. Similarly, the 19th-century mayor of Vienna, Karl Lueger, demonstrated how a popular, elected official could foster an openly anti-Jewish environment within a modern city without requiring the extreme measures of later eras.
Looking ahead, the response from New York’s Jewish community remains a critical point of development. If the community chooses to accept the terms of this bargain, it may find that the definition of “acceptable” Jewishness continues to shrink. Conversely, a large, diverse turnout at the parade—encompassing secular, religious and international Jewish perspectives—could serve as a public rejection of the premise that Jewish peoplehood is a liability.
As the city moves forward, the divide between the administration and the Jewish community will deepen. The coming parade may act as a litmus test for whether New York continues to function as a city that welcomes its citizens in their entirety, or one that demands they become smaller as a condition of belonging.
