Critics say mayor-elect’s framing echoes campus targeting of Jews and misapplies legal standards
During a protest outside Park East Synagogue in Manhattan on November 19, 2025, demonstrators shouted anti-Israel slogans alongside antisemitic slurs. The synagogue was hosting a public event by Nefesh B’Nefesh, an organization that facilitates Jewish immigration to Israel. Protesters stood outside yelling “globalize the intifada” and “death to the IDF,” and were recorded using explicit slurs directed at Jewish attendees, including “f—ing Jewish pricks.”
In response, New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani issued a statement through his press secretary. He acknowledged that “every New Yorker should be free to enter a house of worship without intimidation,” but then added that houses of worship “should not be used to promote activities in violation of international law.” He went on to describe the event as a “misuse” of sacred space. (Jerusalem Post)
This response drew immediate concern from Jewish leaders and civil rights observers. Critics say Mamdani’s framing redirected public focus away from the protesters’ conduct, which included antisemitic threats, and instead questioned the synagogue’s right to host the event. Legal scholars say that response raises two key issues: whether houses of worship lose their protections when hosting politically connected events, and whether international law has legal authority over domestic religious gatherings.
“Misuse” Framing and Religious Freedom
By suggesting the synagogue had “misused” its space by hosting an event tied to Israeli immigration, Mamdani appeared to shift blame from the protestors to the religious institution. This, critics argue, introduces an uneven standard: that religious organizations may be entitled to less protection from harassment if their events are politically charged or controversial.
There is no legal basis under U.S. constitutional law for denying a house of worship protection based on the content of a lawful event it hosts. The First Amendment guarantees both freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion. Courts have repeatedly ruled that even politically related religious activity enjoys the same protections as purely devotional practice, especially when it occurs on private property.
In this case, the synagogue hosted a public program, not a state-sponsored policy initiative. Framing it as a “misuse” of sacred space suggests that the religious venue invited protest by choosing the wrong guest, a position that legal observers say undermines basic protections afforded to all religious institutions.
Is International Law Binding on American Religious Institutions?
Mamdani’s claim that the synagogue event promoted “activities in violation of international law” raises a separate question: does international law govern religious programming inside U.S. houses of worship?
The short answer is no. While the United States is a party to certain international treaties, those treaties do not supersede constitutional protections unless implemented through federal statute or recognized by courts as binding domestic law. Mere reference to “international law” carries no legal weight in limiting how Americans, including religious groups, assemble or express ideas.
U.S. courts generally interpret international law narrowly in domestic contexts. Even when violations of international norms are alleged, enforcement mechanisms typically involve federal law or international tribunals—not local event policy. Hosting a speaker from or about a foreign country, even one engaged in controversial activities, does not expose a synagogue or church to legal liability under international law.
In this case, Mamdani’s reference to “international law” appears to reflect a political judgment rather than a legal one. Critics argue that invoking international norms in this context creates confusion and may be used to justify targeting religious communities whose events or affiliations are unpopular.
Connection to Campus Antisemitism
The Park East protest occurred amid rising concern about antisemitic activity on college campuses. Jewish students at Columbia, NYU, and other universities have reported being targeted during anti-Israel protests. Incidents include being shouted down, excluded from public spaces, and subjected to slurs. Many students say administrators downplayed or ignored the impact of these actions, often focusing instead on the political grievances of protestors.
Mamdani’s statement echoes that pattern. Instead of condemning protestors’ use of antisemitic language, he questioned the legitimacy of the synagogue’s event. Jewish leaders say that response mirrors how institutions have minimized harassment of Jews when protests are framed as political rather than religiously targeted.
Religious freedom and speech protections do not disappear when a religious group takes part in public discourse. U.S. law protects both unpopular speech and the right to worship without interference. Legal scholars note that shifting scrutiny from protestor conduct to the host institution—especially when antisemitic threats are involved—risks encouraging future protests to use intimidation tactics without consequence.
Looking Ahead
Mamdani has not revised or expanded his statement since it was released. He has also not acknowledged the antisemitic content of the protest. Legal experts say the issue is not whether people can protest immigration to Israel or U.S. policy. They can. The issue is whether a mayor-elect should remain silent when protestors shout slurs at Jews entering a synagogue and instead accuse the synagogue itself of misusing its space.
If Mamdani hopes to lead all of New York City, including its Jewish communities, he will likely face continued pressure to clarify where he stands when the rights of religious groups are tested. His current statement leaves open the question of whether he views Jewish institutions as equally entitled to protection under the law.
If you found this article helpful, please like it, share it, and subscribe to the ReligiousLiberty.TV blog at religiouslibertytv.substack.com. Subscribers receive early access to breaking news, legal analysis, and updates on free speech and religious liberty cases.
TLDR (Too Long / Didn’t Read) Summary
After a protest outside Park East Synagogue included antisemitic threats, Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani blamed the synagogue for “misusing” sacred space by hosting an immigration event and referenced “violations of international law.” Critics say this framing ignores the conduct of protestors and wrongly suggests that U.S. religious institutions are subject to international legal norms. Legal experts say international law does not override constitutional protections of worship and free speech, and that Mamdani’s statement risks signaling unequal protection for Jewish institutions.
Please note this article does not constitute legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney to discuss any legal concerns or situations.
Tags: Zohran Mamdani, religious freedom, international law, synagogue protest, antisemitism
Source: ReligiousLibertyTV on Substack
