On Zohran Mamdani, Antoinette Lattouf, and the Slow Turning of the Tide

(Or how the antisemitism slur is losing its power to silence)

I am not naïve. I have no illusions that the system can be changed from within and, after the twin disappointments of Barack Obama and Alexandria Ocassio-Cortez, I’ve learned not to lean into hope that a Democrat, even a non-white one, is either willing or able to shift their party’s foreign policy.

None of that, however, diminishes that something significant happened this week. Something that may not in itself translate into lasting material change but that just may signify a kind of turning of the tide when it comes to public narrative and discourse.

Let’s rewind the clock a few weeks first.

When then-unknown Democratic socialist Shia Muslim candidate for New York City Mayor, Zohran Mamdani, answered the bizarre question, his fate seemed sealed.

On June 4, the first Democratic mayoral debate took a bizarre but somehow unsurprising turn when a moderator made the suspicious declaration that ‘A visit by a mayor of New York is always considered significant’, quickly following it up with ‘Where would you go first?’

Even before the first candidate answered it was clear where this was meant to go.

The first to respond, former Governor and alleged serial sexual harasser, Andrew Cuomo, responded dutifully ‘Given the hostility and antisemitism that has been shown in New York, I would go to the Holy Land.'

Not to be outdone, Whitney Tilson then chimed in that he would take his fourth trip to Israel followed by [his] fifth trip to Ukraine because they are ‘two of our greatest allies fighting on the front lines of the global war on terror.’

Then it was Mamdani’s turn.

‘I would stay in New York City. My plans are to address New Yorkers across the five boroughs and focus on that,’ he replied in what, in a sane world, would be considered an entirely appropriate and reassuring answer.

But we don’t live in a sane world, we live in this one, so here is what happened next. A different moderator jumped in and asked, ‘Would you visit Israel as mayor?’

Mamdani didn’t miss a beat. He’d clearly rehearsed this. ‘As mayor, I would be standing up for Jewish New Yorkers and I’ll be meeting them wherever they are across the five boroughs, whether that’s in their synagogues and temples, or in their homes or on the subway platform. Because ultimately, we need to focus on delivering on their concerns.

The moderator must have caught a whiff of weakness because she pounced. ‘And just yes or no, do you believe in a Jewish state of Israel?’

‘I believe Israel has a right to exist, not as a Jewish state [but] as a state with equal rights.’

If it wasn’t already clear that the initial question was a set-up, this coercion laid any doubts to rest. And sure enough, Cuomo took the opportunity to berate Mamdani for not acknowledging Israel as a Jewish stat and for not enthusiastically vowing to visit it at the first opportunity.

Mamdani did his commendable best, reiterating that he believes all states should be states with equal rights but the damage – it seemed – was done.

Wrong.

Perhaps in any other year, in any other debate, this would have spelled his downfall. But this isn’t any other year, it is 2025, almost two years into Israel’s genocide in Gaza, and many people have had enough of the whitewashing of Israel’s crimes.

Mamdani clearly spoke to a majority of New York’s Democrats because early on Wednesday morning, June 25 (Sydney time), the news broke that Mamdani had defeated Cuomo – the billionaire class’s favoured candidate - to win the Democratic primary.

What is so significant here is not so much Mamdani’s victory per se, but the context in which it came: one where for all intents and purposes, even slightly criticising let alone siding against Israel is tantamount to political suicide, where American politicians fall over themselves to show they love Israel the most.

This has become so absurd that a US state department spokesperson found herself referring to the US as ‘the greatest country on Earth',’ and then quickly added, ‘next to Israel.’ This is the state of the discourse. An American public servant working for the current administration has to publicly place Israel above the country she is meant to serve, just to maintain political credibility.

Yet, even amidst all this buffoonery and the smearing and slurring, a majority of voters sent a resounding message that they just weren’t buying anymore.

You don’t have to believe in the system (and I don’t) to believe that this victory is significant.

What makes it even more noteworthy, however, is that on the same day, on the other side of the world here in in Sydney Australia, a Lebanese-Australian journalist defeated the publicly funded Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) in a landmark case of unfair dismissal that will be studied by media law and ethics students for years if not decades to come.

Journalist and presenter Antoinette Lattouf was fired two days into a three-day stint on the ABC’s morning radio show in the week leading up to Christmas 2023, ostensibly after sharing a Human Rights Watch (HRW) story on her personal account that accused Israel of using starvation as a weapon of war (HRW’s words not Lattouf’s).

The ABC said she breached journalistic neutrality. Lattouf responded she’d merely shared a third-party post that the ABC itself had also shared on its own social media.

On Wednesday June 25, the federal court found that Lattouf was indeed unfairly dismissed.

According to Justice Daryl Rangiah, the ABC had dismissed Lattouf

‘to appease pro-Israel lobbyists who would inevitably escalate their complaints about the ABC employing a presenter they perceived to have antisemitic and anti-Israel opinions in such a public position.’

The ABC leadership, Ranghiah found, was ‘in a state of panic,’ after ‘an orchestrated campaign by pro-Israel lobbyists to have Ms Lattouf taken off air.’

Sure enough, internal emails shown in court include missives from former ABC chair Ita Buttrose to former content chief Chris Oliver-Taylor, instructing him to ‘replace’ Lattouf because ‘I’m over getting emails about her’ and ‘We owe her nothing.’

The legal precedent is enormous. As the producers of Australian political podcast Lamestream wrote on Instagram:

This shatters every argument that every news organisation in the country has used to silence their journalists … who have been subject to policing of their every post, every utterance, for a hint at some internally held political belief. It has been a McCarthyrist campaign conducted by the people who run our news organisations on behalf of powerful interests. Today that has been smashed.

For those of us who’d been watching not just the genocide unfold, but the astonishing doublespeak from our politicians and media class alike, the ramifications are no less great.

The more that we watched on as Palestinians were mercilessly slaughtered, hunted down, bulldozed, starved, and burned to death, the more our politicians and journalists insisted that the real crisis is antisemitism and that this had to be stamped out, including any and all criticism of the state of Israel.

Anyone, even a children’s entertainer who expresses empathy and compassion for Gaza’s children, was rebranded as an antisemite and terrorist supporter for the thought crime of believing that Palestinian children are children, and that they, like all children, have value and deserve food, safety, peace, and joy.

Look, perhaps this jumping the gun. Perhaps it is wishful thinking. Perhaps I am, despite my earlier disclaimer, naïve. But after almost 21 relentless months, it’s hard not see to this as some kind of turning point. Because on the same day, on opposites sides of the world, in two very public and high stakes circumstances, the pro-Israel lobby didn’t get its way.

Maybe, just maybe, the cynical antisemitism slur that is deployed to protect Israel from legitimate and necessary criticism is losing its power to silence.

The strength of the pro-Israel lobby had seemed impenetrable. Somehow, they have managed to present themselves as both David and Goliath in the public sphere. Take, for example, one of the groups involved in the campaign to deplatform Lattouf that calls itself Lawyers for Israel.

Their Whatsapp groupchat, in which they casually described their goal of ruining countless reputations and careers, was leaked online. It should have been a humbling moment, one that would go down as an act of whistleblowing, and yet they managed to recast themselves as the victims of online doxxing. They demanded - and were granted – an inquiry into antisemitism despite actively engaging in an organised attempt to ruin, not just Lattouf’s career, but that of anyone with a public platform who uses it to draw attention to Israel’s crimes.

And it could well be that they will bounce back, more powerful – and vengeful – than ever.

But right now, after this rare and significant double victory, we can take the time to imagine what could be if we had more days like Wednesday June 25, 2025. Days where we can see the decades-long stranglehold that the pro-Israel lobby has had on public discourse loosen ever so slightly.