Being Vocal in Galus

This past Sunday night (marking the 47^th yahrzeit of the original Satmar Rebbe, Rav Yoel Teitelbaum), the current Satmar Rebbe, Rav Zalman Leib Teitelbaum, sharply criticized the Jewish community’s public attacks on Mayor Zohran Mamdani. He characterized efforts to denounce the mayor and label him an antisemite as hisgarus ba’umos – provocation against the nations – and invoked Yirmiyahu’s instruction that Jews in exile should “seek the peace of the city” in which they live. He also framed much of the criticism as an extension of Zionism and the conflict surrounding Eretz Yisrael.

I approach those remarks with tremendous respect and some hesitation in offering a different perspective. This is not written out of anger toward Satmar. Quite the opposite.

Chazal teach us in Pirkei Avos that the world stands on Torah, avodah and gemilus chasadim. When it comes to chesed, I believe every Jew can look toward Satmar and learn from its example. Satmar personifies an extraordinary willingness to help another Jew who is sick, struggling or in crisis, regardless of whether that Jew shares Satmar’s hashkafah.

I know this personally. I have experienced Satmar chesed many times and have seen firsthand the instinct to help another Jew simply because he or she is a Jew, without first asking about politics, affiliation or ideology. Klal Yisrael should recognize and emulate that.

It is precisely from that perspective that I offer another view, because the question is ultimately: What actually helps Jews?

Those criticizing Mayor Mamdani generally do not believe they are picking an unnecessary fight with government. They believe criticism can change rhetoric and conduct, create political consequences, bring concerns to other governmental officials and ultimately make Jewish New Yorkers safer.

Their motivation should at least be understood before their conduct is characterized as provocation.

This Is About Jews, Not Zionism

My first difficulty is with framing the criticism of Mayor Mamdani as an extension of Zionism.

If this were simply a fight between a mayor critical of Israel and Zionists who dislike his views, that would be one conversation. But many Jews believe something broader is happening: that Jews, as Jews, are increasingly being marginalized in New York civic life.

The recent controversy involving the mayor’s Advisory Committee on the Judiciary illustrates the point.

The Mayor appointed an 18-member committee responsible for evaluating candidates for important New York City judicial appointments. Not one of its 18 members was Jewish – an extraordinary result in New York City, with its enormous Jewish population and deep pool of accomplished Jewish lawyers and judges.

And it was not that no qualified Jewish candidate had been proposed. Retired Appellate Division Justice John Leventhal had reportedly been recommended by New York’s Chief Judge, Rowan Wilson, and was not selected.

To be fair, City Hall says Justice Leventhal was rejected because of his prior representation of Ghislaine Maxwell, not because he is Jewish. That explanation should be acknowledged.

But even accepting it does not answer the larger question: how did a committee of 18 people intended to represent New York’s legal community end up without a single Jew?

What does that have to do with Zionism?

Justice Leventhal was not being proposed to represent Israel or Zionism. He was a retired New York appellate judge being considered for a New York City judicial committee.

The concern is about Jews in New York.

And that concern is not limited to Orthodox Jews or religious Zionists. It is being expressed across the Jewish spectrum – Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, secular and others who disagree profoundly about Israel, religion and politics.

For many Jews, the starting point is not Israel.

It is New York.

The Concern Is Also Jewish Safety

Many Jewish New Yorkers genuinely believe that rhetoric from powerful political leaders contributes to the atmosphere in which antisemitism operates.

That does not mean one statement by Mayor Mamdani caused one particular assault. But Jews do not need to prove a direct link before worrying about the cumulative effect of rhetoric. Recent violence against visibly Jewish New Yorkers has only intensified that fear.

Satmar should understand this perhaps better than almost any community. A Satmar chasid walking down a New York street is unmistakably Jewish.

Someone who hates Jews is not going to stop him and ask whether he holds by the Vayoel Moshe before deciding whether he is a target.

To an antisemite, the Satmar chasid, Modern Orthodox Jew, Reform Jew, secular Jew, Zionist and anti-Zionist are all Jews. That is why making this principally about Zionism misses the point.

Many people speaking out believe they are not protecting Zionism. They are protecting Jews.

Criticism Can Be Productive

This is also why I disagree with viewing criticism itself as dangerous. In a democracy, criticism can serve a constructive purpose.

An elected official facing sustained opposition may moderate his rhetoric. Allies may pressure him privately. Other officials may demand answers. Journalists may scrutinize conduct. Civil-rights authorities may examine governmental action. Voters may make clear that certain behavior carries political consequences.

The objective is not confrontation for its own sake. It is change.

Mayor Mamdani does not operate in a vacuum. Governor Kathy Hochul is an important political and governmental partner whose cooperation New York City needs. Serious concern among Jewish New Yorkers can create pressure not only at City Hall but in Albany.

The same is true federally. If actual governmental conduct raises legitimate questions of unlawful discrimination, Jews can bring those facts to the attention of the Justice Department and other civil-rights authorities.

That does not mean Governor Hochul should remove Mayor Mamdani or that the Trump Justice Department should investigate him merely because Jews disagree with his politics.

It means the mayor is not a king. There are lawful institutions capable of responding when legitimate lines are crossed.

And perhaps the most important consequence of public criticism is simpler: it may cause Mayor Mamdani himself to become more careful.

If criticism causes him to moderate his rhetoric, take Jewish concerns more seriously, include Jewish voices where they have been absent or reconsider conduct Jews reasonably view as discriminatory, then speaking out has accomplished its purpose.

It has helped Jews.

Galus in an American Democracy

The Rebbe’s invocation of Yirmiyahu and concern about hisgarus ba’umos are enormously important Torah principles. But I respectfully question whether they require silence when Jews living in America believe government is harming them.

America is not a monarchy. Its constitutional system affirmatively gives citizens the right to criticize government, vote, organize, petition, litigate and peacefully protest.

Those are not acts of rebellion against the American system. They are the American system. And Satmar and other Chasidic communities have long understood this.

Chasidim vote, organize, litigate, protest, meet elected officials and use their political strength to influence government. As communities grow, they lawfully use the ballot box to influence school boards, village governments, zoning and public policy.

There is nothing wrong with that. That is democracy.

The same approach has been used repeatedly when religious interests were threatened.

When Covid restrictions burdened shuls, Orthodox and chasidic communities went to federal court and invoked the First Amendment. When New York City regulated metzitzah b’peh, Orthodox and chasidic organizations challenged City Hall. When Williamsburg stores were challenged over modesty signs, community members voiced opposition. When bike lanes were viewed as harmful to Williamsburg, chasidim organized and objected. And recently when members of the community recently objected to advertisements on MTA buses, they petitioned government for change.

I think all of that is entirely appropriate.

It does not reject galus. It recognizes that this particular galus is a constitutional democracy that gives religious minorities lawful tools to protect themselves.

So why should Jewish safety be different?

If a regulation threatens a Satmar yeshiva, going to court is not ordinarily treated as hisgarus ba’umos. If legislation threatens religious practice, lobbying government is legitimate. If government action threatens a Chasidic neighborhood, organizing voters is accepted advocacy.

All of these actions rest on the same premise:

Government can be influenced, and citizens have the lawful right to try to influence it.

If Jews sincerely believe the mayor’s rhetoric or conduct threatens their safety and their place in New York, why should using those same democratic tools suddenly become improper?

In a Democracy Our Voices Matter

I began with Satmar’s extraordinary chesed because I mean it. And I believe the instinct underlying that chesed supports another way of looking at this issue.

When Jews are hurting, we help them. When Jews are threatened, we protect them. When Jews are marginalized, we stand beside them.

Sometimes that means helping a family or visiting someone in a hospital.

And sometimes, in America, protecting another Jew means using our voice – speaking to elected officials, going to court, contacting civil-rights authorities or voting.

Sometimes it simply means creating enough pressure that an elected official thinks twice before saying tomorrow what he would have said today.

That is not anger for the sake of anger.

It is advocacy directed toward a result.

None of this means every criticism of Mayor Mamdani is fair. Jews should speak responsibly. There is room to debate whether particular accusations go too far, whether the word “antisemite” is warranted in every instance, and whether some rhetoric is itself unnecessarily inflammatory.

If the Rebbe’s message were that Jews should avoid gratuitous insults and reckless rhetoric, that would be an important conversation.

But that is different from characterizing the broader effort to challenge the Mayor as Zionist provocation.

There should be prudence, humility, hakaras hatov and prayer for the welfare of the city in which we live. But prudence does not require passivity.

Satmar’s own history demonstrates that a community can remain fiercely committed to Torah, fiercely opposed to Zionism and deeply conscious that we remain in galus, while vigorously exercising the lawful rights American democracy provides to protect Jewish life.

If those rights may properly be used to protect a shul, a yeshiva, a religious practice or a neighborhood, they should apply no less when Jews across the spectrum genuinely fear for their physical safety and their place in New York.

That is not a Zionist concern.

It is a Jewish one.

And speaking up about it may be one of the ways we protect one another.