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.
it’s easier to believe your relatives are dull-witted than to accept that they are racists and ethnosupremacists
it isI don’t want to pile on, comrade, but
it’s not safe to be Jewish in New York city.
Is actually approaching mental insanity.
It’s so fucking delusional!!
Ironically, it’s probably objectively one of the safest places in the world to be Jewish
But it was what he said next that alarmed some Jewish leaders: He chastised the synagogue, saying through his spokeswoman that “these sacred spaces should not be used to promote activities in violation of international law.”
Silly man, doesn’t he know that international law doesn’t apply to countries within the imperial core?
Who cares, by the time he is up for re election the public is going to even more anti Israel, if the entity even still exists.
I hope that he continues to fight against these fucking settler land sales and any other zionist trash operating in the city.
Yes, as long as he doesn’t give in to the zionists this will just be free marketing for him.
what he said next … alarmed some Jewish leaders: … sacred spaces should not be used to promote activities in violation of international law
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.
Ngl I’m pretty tired of like 1/3 of hexbear being about this guy. Not to throw shade specifically at you, it’s more of the forum as a whole kind of thing.
OK but is the responsibility of all of us to be posting the kind of content we want to see on the site.
That said, I would personally favor containing posts about Mamdani to c/electoralism unless he is doing something outside the bounds of the electoral system. Could even be time limited on that policy (3-6months?)
Mods, MODS!! listen to this man
https://hexbear.net/post/6840704
see point C. I’m tryin’ over heah
Yeah but also you need to post more comrade, just rip from r/trueanon r/reprogram or r/hasan if needed 💚
reddit put the kibosh on deprogram around the time kirk got kirked
Does Mamdani count as a pop culture icon at this point?
Nah we take him slightly more seriously than that until he’s in office and proves himself either way, but in the same vein I don’t want to see hasan or BE outside of c/PC
on another note c!popculture was such a good addition
I get you. Not defending him, I’m just venting because of the nature of the situation. If it was someone else, it would be the same story. Just so tired of seeing the any push back on Israel being reported in this way.
I do certainly agree in that regard as well. They’re trying real hard to manufacture some consent and the fucked things is it’s probably working
Mamdani made me bad at math too
I see this as a positive, actually. Makes his team think twice before backing down on opposing Israel, because they’ll never he’ll never be accepted as a regular Democrat like AOC. Look at Tlaib and Omar.
I think some people are probably going to see through it.
I think good evidence that people are seeing through it is that not only did he win the primary, but he won the actual election without full party support. This is not like Corbyn where he won the leadership and then got surprised by the antisemitism allegations. He has been under this attack from the very beginning, and it failed.
But, I can tell you from talking to my parents that they think that he’s “already failed” because of this incident.
Genuine question, did they support him before this? Because it’s hard to tell if they’re already detractors doomsaying, or if they’re genuinely disappointed.
I think they are detractors, and genuinely buy the “it’s not safe to be Jewish in NYC” line and all of the other zionist crap the NY Times prints.
The antisemitism attack failed to prevent him from being elected, but if he truly passes a law to ban these protests, then they succeeded
Yeah, if he backs down and joins the Dems on this it’s fucked. But at least we can have the assurance that that would be a terrible choice for him, losing all anti-zionist support while never ever being allowed to escape the ghost of “antisemitism”. If he actually backs that legislation (I’m not sure from the wording) and it gets passed, it’s political suicide.
100%, also I did a quick search and it seems like there are protests all over the world, outside places various of worship. Right now lots of protests at churches in the Philippines and Historically there have been protests of the pope and the catholic church over pedophilia. So this would be an absurd law that would for sure ruin his career.
It would also be illegal for him to ban the protestors via a law, so that’s not possible
It would be illegal to ban the religious services, so that’s not possible
It would be illegal to allow the protesters to physically prevent religious patrons from attending religious services
The “law” in question literally can’t exist. It’s a complete made up nothingburger. Allowing any one of these would result in a massive open and shut civil rights lawsuit against the city. It is actually illegal for protestors to block people from practicing their religion, even though we are wise enough to understand that it’s thinly veiled colonialism. They legally have to be able to attend their religious event, and the city has to enforce that if protestors can’t self enforce.
Since he’s not in office we obviously can’t know for sure. But “I love the idea and I can’t thank you enough” seems pretty clear as to his intentions re the law and should be another piece of evidence into how he’ll handle antisemitism hoaxes while in office. From validating fears about another 10/7 in New York, to giving hundreds of millions to fight antisemitism, to this latest example of tone policing activists while bending over backwards to appease these rabbis, it seems like he has no intention of standing on business re: Palestine
Mamdani Response to Protest Inflames Tensions with Jewish Leaders
“We will protect New Yorkers’ First Amendment rights while making clear that nothing can justify language calling for ‘death to’ anyone,” Mr. Mamdani said in a statement to The New York Times. “It is unacceptable, full stop.”
“A synagogue is where Jews learn, pray, and strengthen Jewish life,” William Daroff, the chief executive of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, said on social media. “Teaching about aliyah and Zionism belongs in that space. It reflects who we are as a people.” (Jews make “Aliyah” when they move to Israel.)
I’m tired, grandpa
- aita_wiferecommendsballreductionsurgery [she/her, comrade/them]@hexbear.netBannedEnglish12·1 month ago
No worries. Mamdani’s got allies. 🙂
I think this help usually turns out to be an offer of wealth, access to the inner circle, and a cozy do nothing job/politcal appointment when out of office.
lol free marketing ,these people don’t know what they are doing
Kissinger ,Ben Gurion ,Golda Meir all rolling in their graves hahaha
I don’t give a shit about Zohran Mamdani.
