Zohran Mamdani is controversial primarily due to disagreements over his stance on Israel and Palestinian rights, and how those views are interpreted by critics as antisemitic accusations. Supporters argue he is holding Israel accountable and advocating for Palestinian human rights, while opponents and some Jewish groups say his rhetoric crosses lines into antisemitism or sympathy for extremist slogans. Additionally, his background as a Muslim of Ugandan-Indian descent and his progressive, anti-establishment political stance have amplified scrutiny from both political opponents and some media outlets. Key facets often cited in coverage:

• Israel-Palestinian policy: Mamdani has been vocal in criticizing Israeli government policies, which has drawn intense backlash from some political figures and Jewish organizations who frame criticisms of Israel in ways that surface as antisemitic rhetoric in certain contexts.
• “Globalize the intifada” remarks: He faced specific controversy over a slogan associated with supporting Palestinian rights that some outlets and critics argued could be read as endorsing violence; Mamdani and many supporters frame the phrase as a call for solidarity and rights rather than endorsement of violence.
• Responses from institutions and opinion leaders: Several mainstream outlets and public figures have condemned the slogan or framed his remarks as antisemitic, while Mamdani and his allies contest those characterizations and emphasize accountability for state policies and anti-hate initiatives for all communities.
• Personal and demographic factors: His identity as a Muslim, his immigrant background, and his status as a Democratic Socialist in New York City politics contribute to how his rhetoric is perceived and weaponized in political discourse.

What this means in practice:

• In the 2025 NYC mayoral race, controversy has been a recurring theme alongside policy proposals on affordability, housing, and public safety. The discourse has included debates over anti-hate crime funding, the balance between criticizing state policies and avoiding prejudice against Jewish communities, and how cohesively a candidate can address antisemitism while advocating for Palestinian rights.
• The controversy options for voters often boil down to: is the emphasis on holding powerful actors (like national governments) accountable, or do the statements risk stigmatizing or delegitimizing a whole community? Different outlets and commentators frame these questions in divergent ways, contributing to a polarized narrative around Mamdani.

If you’d like, I can tailor a concise briefing that maps the main claims, who’s making them, and what Mamdani’s own responses have been, with up-to-date examples from major outlets.