Rumble link Foadebate Al-Andalus Tribune

“NYC’s new Muslim mayor: American Islam or American evolution?” In a recent interview I conducted with Professor Kevin Barrett, a well-known political analyst and Islamologist, we examined this very question in depth. Barrett pointed to Momdani’s election as mayor of New York—despite the intense climate of Islamophobia and influential Zionist lobbying—and described the event as both “unexpected” and “performative.” It was unexpected because a Muslim figure, openly defending Palestinian rights, managed to win in one of the most powerful Western cities. Yet it was performative in the sense that the American governance system consistently attempts to channel dissent into controlled, non-radical forms.

According to Barrett, although Momdani holds humane and justice-oriented positions, he is compelled to operate within a discursive framework that is palatable to the mainstream liberal-secular West—rather than speaking in terms that resonate with the masses of Muslims who seek fundamental change. Thus, while on the surface this may appear to be a defeat for Islamophobia, in practice, this election could serve as a way for the system to cleanse itself of accusations of racism and anti-Muslim bias.

FoaDebate: In the name of God, the compassionate, and the merciful. Hello, everybody. Hope you are doing great. You’re watching FoaDebate. Today, I’m honored to host Professor Kevin Barrett, an Arabist-Islamologist scholar, and one of America’s best known critics (of the War on Terror) and political analysts. We are here to discuss the various dimensions of electing a Muslim and anti-Zionist figure as the mayor of New York City. Thank you for joining us, Kevin, and good to see you.

Kevin Barrett: Thanks. It’s great to be with you.

As you know, Mandani’s rise from a relatively unknown figure in the polls to the position of New York City mayor has been described by some media outlets and analysts as a major political upset. How do you assess this sudden rise?

Yes, it absolutely was a major upset. And I think maybe the most interesting thing about it was that it really began when Mamdani was the only anti-Zionist candidate among a number of candidates for mayor of New York City. He was in the middle of a debate, and the question was, “where is the first place you will go if you’re elected mayor?” Every other candidate fell all over themselves competing with each other to say that they would rush off to the state of Israel—that is occupied Palestine, of course—and basically kiss the prime minister’s whatever, and put on the beanie at the wall and essentially pledge loyalty to the state of Israel.

It was actually so extreme that when I first saw this, I thought it was some kind of parody. But no, it was the actual debate. And Mamdani was the only candidate who said the opposite. He said, “I’m not going anywhere. If I’m elected, I’ll be elected to represent the people of New York City.” And then he was attacked. Everybody jumped on him and attacked him as some sort of anti-Semite who wasn’t loyal to Israel. And he defended himself very ably, very competently, in a way that won him a lot of admirers in the mainstream—by saying that he didn’t hate Jewish people. He would be happy to meet with New York City Jews, who of course are the most influential segment of that city, and listen to their concerns and help them achieve their goals and so on, but that he wasn’t going to rush off to Israel.

And then when attacked later as an anti-Zionist, he said that he does recognize that “Israel” has a right to exist, but only as a non-ethnostate: not a state of and for the Jewish people, but a state of and for all of its rightful citizens, obviously including Palestinians who’ve been ethnically cleansed.

That’s a very strong position for a successful American politician to take. And it’s kind of astounding that he won the office of mayor of the most Jewish city in the world outside of occupied Palestine…

(Read the full transcript at the Al-Andalus Tribune)