It is a moment when Jewish communities on both sides of the Atlantic are asking a simple, urgent question: do our leaders actually understand the threat we face? The contrast between two recent government responses could not be starker. In the United Kingdom, the government has just accepted all 27 recommendations from an independent review into antisemitism in schools and colleges in England, a sweeping and detailed plan that adopts a clear definition of antisemitism, mandates specialized training for educators, strengthens reporting procedures, and creates independent oversight. In New York City, Mayor Zohran Mamdani has released a 33-page strategy to combat antisemitism that, while touching on education and community safety, does not adopt a single working definition of antisemitism, does not explicitly address the relationship between anti-Zionism and antisemitism, and establishes no numerical benchmarks for measuring whether its initiatives actually succeed. The question hanging over Mamdani’s plan is one that Jewish New Yorkers are increasingly asking out loud: why does Britain’s approach seem so much more serious and specific than the one proposed in America’s most Jewish city? For Jewish students in England, the new measures are a response to real and daily fear. For Jewish New Yorkers, the mayor’s plan feels, to many, like a document that names the problem but refuses to look at it directly.
The British plan emerged after a deeply human investigation into what Jewish students actually endure. A BBC report from Yavneh College, a Jewish secondary school near London, gave voice to students describing how antisemitism has shaped their lives, how they have learned to hide their Jewish identity, how they have been targeted for abuse simply because of who they are. That painful testimony helped drive the independent review, led by Sir David Bell, a former senior education official. The review found that nearly three in five Jewish people between the ages of 16 and 19 had experienced or witnessed antisemitism, a devastating statistic that underscores how normal this hatred has become in British schools. Bell’s conclusion was clear: antisemitism is a distinct form of racism requiring a specific and intentional response, not a vague one-size-fits-all approach. The government’s accepted recommendations include encouraging adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition of antisemitism, which lays out examples of how criticism of Israel can cross into antisemitism while also making clear that criticism comparable to that directed at any other country is not inherently antisemitic. The plan also calls for better guidance to help teachers distinguish legitimate political debate from harassment, intimidation and antisemitic rhetoric, and it establishes independent oversight to ensure schools actually follow through. Education Secretary Lucy Powell said the government would create an implementation group to drive the work forward, and Bell has been commissioned to conduct an independent assessment of progress after one year. Ambassador Rabbi Yehuda Kaploun, the U.S. special envoy to monitor and combat antisemitism, welcomed Britain’s decision but added the crucial caveat that “the challenge lies in implementation and enforcement.” It is one thing to accept recommendations on paper; it is another thing entirely to change the daily reality for Jewish children.
British Jewish author and Holocaust educator Dov Forman, a recent university graduate, has become one of the most vocal voices on this issue, and he does not mince words. Forman called the recommendations “the bare minimum,” even as he acknowledged that the government is at least attempting to confront the problem directly. His message to Mayor Mamdani is simple: look at what Britain has done and adopt similar measures, starting with the IHRA definition. “The basic way to solve antisemitism is to actually agree on what it is and to understand that targeting a Jew deliberately because of what is going on in Israel, for example, is antisemitic, as the IHRA definition says,” Forman told Fox News Digital. He warned that the British recommendations remain largely optional, and their effectiveness will depend on whether institutions actually choose to act. “I do think some of them will be enforced and listened to. I do worry, though, that the government says things and does not actually take it seriously enough,” he said. Forman also called out British officials for what he sees as hypocrisy: they chastise schools for demonizing Jews over Israel while their own leaders stand at the dispatch box in the House of Commons and blame Israel week after week. “It is very rich of the government to say that schools should adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism and that Jews should not be demonized for what is going on in the Middle East, and then for them to get up in the dispatch box in the House of Commons every week and blame Israel,” he said. His demand is direct: “Stop talking and start acting.” He wants the government to confront Islamist extremism and the Muslim Brotherhood more directly, and to identify more clearly where antisemitism is originating. For Forman, the real test is not whether a plan sounds good, but whether it changes behavior, whether Jewish students feel safe, and whether institutions are held accountable when they fail.
In New York City, Mayor Mamdani’s strategy is being met with far more skepticism. The plan is not entirely without positive elements. It calls for expanding Holocaust education, including opportunities for students to visit the Museum of Jewish Heritage, and it addresses how public schools should respond to antisemitic discrimination. But critics argue that the plan avoids the very difficult questions that any serious strategy must confront. It does not adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism, which is the internationally recognized standard used by governments around the world. It does not explicitly acknowledge that anti-Zionism can function as a mask for antisemitic hatred, despite the fact that many Jewish New Yorkers say they have been targeted precisely because of their connection to Israel. And it does not establish measurable benchmarks, so there is no way to know whether the strategy is working or merely performing concern. One of Mamdani’s earliest actions as mayor was to revoke an executive order issued by former Mayor Eric Adams that adopted the IHRA definition for city agencies. That decision sent a signal that many Jewish leaders found deeply disturbing. Rabbi Chaim Steinmetz, senior rabbi of Congregation Kehilath Jeshurun on Manhattan’s Upper East Side, dismissed Mamdani’s strategy as a “paper tiger.” He noted that while the plan announces a total price tag of $36 million, the actual amount dedicated to physical security for vulnerable institutions is just $1 million. “It’s a million dollars in security in a city with a million Jews. It’s a dollar a Jew,” Steinmetz said. The plan also includes $6.4 million for grants through the city’s Partners Against the Hate initiative, but Steinmetz argued that much of that money would flow to cultural centers and broadly defined community initiatives rather than to immediate security needs. For a city where synagogues, Jewish schools and community centers have had to hire armed guards and install fortified entrances, a strategy that cannot even name the threat properly feels like a betrayal.
The most damning criticism of Mamdani’s plan came from the collective voice of New York’s major Jewish organizations. UJA-Federation of New York, the Jewish Community Relations Council of New York, the American Jewish Committee’s New York office and the New York Board of Rabbis issued a joint statement warning that the plan fails to address a central source of contemporary antisemitism. The organizations argued that rhetoric demonizing or delegitimizing Israel contributes to Jewish New Yorkers being treated as suspect, excluded or unsafe, and that any serious strategy must acknowledge that connection. “How can you have a strategy to keep New York Jews safe when you can’t even name what the danger is?” Steinmetz asked. It is a devastating question, and one that Mamdani’s office has not answered. Fox News Digital asked the mayor’s office why the city’s strategy omits the IHRA definition and measurable benchmarks, and whether the administration would consider safeguards similar to those adopted by Britain. There was no response by the time of publication. That silence is itself telling. The contrast between London and New York is not just about policy details; it is about political will. Britain has defined the problem, adopted a definition, committed to training, established reporting procedures and created a process for independent review. New York City has produced a document that mentions many concerns but refuses to draw the bright lines that would actually protect Jewish residents. It is one thing to say you oppose antisemitism; it is another to agree on what antisemitism is, to say clearly that hatred of Israel can be a cover for hatred of Jews, and to create measurable standards for progress.
Ultimately, neither Britain nor New York City has fully solved the problem. Britain’s measures are new, and even the most optimistic observers acknowledge that implementation will be the real test. Recommendations that remain optional may be ignored by schools that are already overburdened and undertrained. The government’s own rhetoric about Israel may undermine its stated commitment to protecting Jewish communities. And the independent assessment, while welcome, is still a year away. But there is a fundamental difference in approach. Britain has taken the first step that any meaningful response requires: it has defined the problem. It has acknowledged that antisemitism is distinct, that it requires specific education and training, and that Jewish students deserve protections that are not optional. New York City, meanwhile, is still at the stage of asking whether the mayor’s strategy actually identifies the threat. Jewish leaders are not demanding perfection; they are demanding honesty. They want the city to adopt the IHRA definition, to acknowledge the link between anti-Zionism and antisemitism, and to establish benchmarks that can be measured and enforced. They want a mayor who will speak clearly about the danger, not one who revokes the definitions that offer clarity. The human cost of this failure is not abstract. It is the Jewish student who hides a Star of David necklace. It is the teenager who learns to avoid mentioning Israel because it invites abuse. It is the community that must decide whether its leaders are allies or merely politicians performing concern. As Dov Forman said, “Stop talking and start acting.” That message applies to London, where the hard work of implementation is just beginning, and to New York, where a plan with no definition and no benchmarks is not a strategy at all. Jewish communities on both sides of the Atlantic deserve leaders who understand the danger, name it clearly, and act with urgency. Anything less is a paper tiger, and Jewish communities have seen too many of those to be comforted by words alone.
