I’ve always been skeptical of Mamdani, but I think this disgusting zionist reporting is going to continue as long as he’s in office. It’s a gift for zionists and bigots everywhere. Every single thing he does is going to be labeled antisemitic and the over 40 liberal NY Times crowd is going to eat it up again and again. They are continuing with the insanely out of touch narrative that antisemitism is on the rise and it’s not safe to be Jewish in New York city. Absolute alternative reality these people have constructed.
I think some people are probably going to see through it. But, I can tell you from talking to my parents that they think that he’s “already failed” because of this incident. Absolute fucking brain worms. Glad I’m not having Thanksgiving with them. No critical thinking whatsoever.
Yes, as long as he doesn’t give in to the zionists this will just be free marketing for him.
lmao, zionists “alarmed” because they are told “maybe it’s a bad idea to use holy temples to commit and facilitate genocide”.
I’m going to be honest, I don’t think it’s “capitulating to Zionism” for a mayor to not openly endorse chanting death at people. In these screenshots he still called the Israeli colonization of Palestine a violation of international law, and that people’s first amendment rights to say those things are protected.
He called the 67 occupation a violation of international law, not the colonization of Palestine. This is a liberal Zionist talking point that permits the state of Israel to exist while saying they can only keep the land stolen in 48. Since Israel will never voluntarily give that land back, it’s de facto recognizing Israel’s right to exist
The chant was death to the IDF. How do you square calling it a genocide while saying “death to the genociders” is out of bounds? There’s also a difference between “openly endorsing” and “explicitly condemning”
Finally, he said he plans to assist all synagogues in suppressing protests outside them. How is that not capitulating to Zionism?
Also, he issued two statements, the second one omitting all criticism of the synagogue and solely criticizing protestors. How is this not capitulating to Zionism?
Did he specify only that occupation is a violation of international law, and not the rest of Israeli settlement of Palestine?
He defended the right of protestors to say death to the IDF and that it’s protected by the first amendment. He’s a mayor-elect and if he wants to ever effective govern at all you don’t get to endorse chants for death, even if they’re morally correct against genociders. You square it simply by using nuance to understand that if he’s able to effectively govern he can actually do something about NYC’s financial ties to Israel, which goes a lot further towards ending the genocide in question than the moral victory of endorsing or condemning the language of protestors.
He’s not talking about suppressing protests, he’s talking about ensuring religious patrons are able to attend religious events and not be physically blocked from them. You and I both understand the nuance that it’s colonization thinly veiled in religion, and a violation of international law, but their attendance of religious events is explicitly protected by the first amendment. It is actually illegal to physically stop people from practicing their religion. Protestors will still be allowed to protest, by NYC would have a massive open and shut civil rights lawsuit against it if protestors continued to block religious services and the city did nothing to ensure people could attend.
He already criticized the synagogues and called the activities they endorse a violation of international law.
He did specify that, nothing to do with Zionist colonialism in general (ie their Aliyah programs are totally valid despite also being colonial). I’ll respond to the rest when I’m free later
To be clear, the idea that protestors are blocking Jews from going places is a red herring. It was trotted out during the campus protests and it will be used the next time someone protests a Zionist institution that happens to be Jewish. I promise these conservative rabbis aren’t just trying to ensure free expression of religion
A college campus is a very different situation than an actual religious event. Being on a college campus is not a first amendment protected activity the way attending a religious event is. I’ve seen the videos of both and did see protestors the other day clearly attempting to physically stop religious patrons from attending their (albeit shitty) event, which is what prompted this entire discussion about Zohran in the first place.
The settlement statement is disappointing and an unforced error. He could have left it at the violation of international law statement and up to interpretation with probably not much pushback. I wouldn’t have put out that clarification at least, but I wouldn’t call that a world ending total capitulation to Zionism as much as probably a strategic move to be able to effectively wield your governing coalition in a way that can actually make a dent through BDS. I get hating on Zohran where it’s deserved and we need to do it, but automatically assuming somebody has the worst intentions all of the time is not realistic or good for you.
What would you call a pattern of unforced errors? Because I heard that same excuse when he issued a follow up clarification that actually Cuba and Venezuela were terrible dictatorships.
I’m not “hating” and I’m not saying it’s “world ending total capitulation,” I’m just looking at patterns of actions and reactions, and making observations.
He even ended his meeting with Trump agreeing with him on fighting antisemitism, and we all know how Trump has weaponized antisemitism against colleges with antizionist students.
Im going to be honest, a “pattern” of like… a handful of unforced foreign policy errors as a local politician who has almost no say in foreign policy is mildly disappointing at worst when the reality is that they will probably make effectively governing in a way that actually matters more realistic.
Yes, we should be fighting antisemitism btw, but Zohran’s policy is an 800% increase in funding for hate crime prevention programs, not just for antisemitic violence. Zohran is not Donald Trump, and the entire meeting was pretty much there to secure halfway decent federal funding for NYC, which is critical. If you think Zohran is going to use antisemitism as a cudgel the way Trump or Eric Adams have, you are not making an argument based on reality. I fail to see anything in his history as an organizer, elected official, or statements as a mayor-elect that could possibly lead to the conclusion that he’s planning to “crack down” on anti-Zionist protestors at all. In fact, in the screenshots you’ve shared he clearly says the anti-Zionist protestors are allowed to exercise their first amendment right