New York Magazine Doubles Down on Attacking Israel

New York City mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani attends a press conference at the Unisphere in the Queens borough of New York City, US, Nov. 5, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Kylie Cooper Stung by criticism that the theme of its Aug. 10, 2026, issue erased Israel and Jews, editors of New York Magazine pushed back in the letters section of their Aug. 24 issue. The earlier issue, with a cover proclaiming 'Habibi City,' highlighted the growing political and cultural clout of New York residents who come from SWANA (Southwest Asia and North Africa). SWANA, the magazine explained, 'suggested a decolonial framework,' apparently meaning that it was free from the sin of colonialism, which taints the more commonly used 'Middle East.' Two articles in particular drove the controversy. The first was 'Soft Power,' by Zaina Arafat, which focused on the growing political organization of the so-called SWANA community in New York. To Arafat the common thread uniting the community originating from 'Palestine to Iran to Sudan' is that 'Palestinian deserve human rights.' She also argued that among the challenges faced by the community are 'xenophobia, Islamophobia, and Zionism.' The second contentious article was 'When Eating Out Is Political,' by Madeline Leung Coleman which was a survey of high-end SWANA restaurants. The editors cited the controversy, noting that publications like Tablet, National Review, and the New York Post had criticized the Habibi issue. They specifically mentioned a New York Post opinion article by John Podhoretz. The headline asserted that the New York Magazine article showed that 'Jews aren't welcome in ­Mamdani's NYC.' The editors of New York responded, asserting that such objections to the article could be termed Islamophobic. Supporting this insinuation, they quoted Washington Post columnist Shadi Hamid saying, 'It's sad to see certain pro-Israel voices treat culture as zero-sum. It seems that their opposition is to the very idea of a Muslim or Arab public presence in NYC.' But Hamid is gaslighting. The people protesting the exclusion of Israel actually read the article. It isn't the pro-Israel critics who are begrudging Arab and Muslim American's success; it's that those same Arab and Muslims deny Israel and Jews their place in the Middle East. While Arafat wrote that 'SWANA includes countries from Palestine to Iran to Sudan,' she added, 'While Israel is geographically part of the region, the question of whether Israelis can claim a connection to it, particularly given the political framework of terms like SWANA, is complicated.' Actually, it's neither complicated nor surprising. If Israel isn't part of SWANA, and especially if 'Palestine' is, then SWANA isn't merely a geographic designation, and it's not simply a 'political framework.' It's a political classification for those from a geographic area with a special, exclusionary rule for one group alone: the Jews, who are also indigenous to that geographic area. That's not complicated; it's the essence of discrimination. No amount of academic gibberish to dress it up otherwise can change that fundamental fact. Arafat and New York Magazine might as well put up a sign stating: 'Jews need not apply.' The erasure of Jews from their ancestral lands is repeatedly driven home. Coleman described the menus at one featured restaurant as depicting 'a cheerful tourist-style map in which the land mass currently called Israel is titled 'Discover Palestine.'' Coleman describes this erasure and delegitimization of the world's only Jewish state as merely 'combative.' Israel wasn't the only thing erased from the Aug. 10 issue of New York . Coleman and Arafat mentioned Oct. 7 numerous times in their article. Never once did they explain what happened when the estimated 6,000 Gazans invaded Israel that day, killing nearly 1,200 people and abducting 251. Instead of offering an explanation or apology for whitewashing the horrific atrocities, the editors merely acknowledged that some readers were 'upset' about the omission. Meanwhile, they excused themselves for the repeated use of the 'genocide' libel against Israel throughout both articles. The editors explained: '…the magazine's editors decided the term was an accurate description of the atrocities in Gaza, that accusations of antisemitic intent were in fact obfuscating an overwhelming ­scholarly consensus…' Here, New York Magazine is lying. There is no scholarly consensus. Five times as many scholars signed a statement disputing the allegation as voted for the oft-cited International Association of Genocide Scholars' resolution making the allegation. Even the former International Criminal Court (ICC) chief prosecutor, Karim Khan, told podcaster Mehdi Hasan that it would be 'reckless' for a prosecutor to pursue genocide charges 'simply because of clamor.' Khan asserted that, '[y]ou move based upon evidence,' implying he did not see enough for the allegation. The contrast is striking. With no justification, New York Magazine 's reporters whitewashed a day filled with documented atrocities; but institutionally, the magazine cited a phony consensus to charge Israel with genocide. The effect of the Habibi City issue, and the responses as published by New York , is to deny Israel and Jews a place in the Middle East, declare advocacy for Israel to be beyond the pale, and erase Hamas's atrocities from history. The effect here isn't to celebrate the success of a minority but to exclude a different minority. The author writes for the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis (CAMERA), where a version of this article first appeared. The opinions presented by Algemeiner bloggers are solely theirs and do not represent those of The Algemeiner, its publishers or editors. If you would like to share your views with a blog post on The Algemeiner, please be in touch through our Contact page.