Ty for sharing.

the issue is irrelevant.

but there are no foreign policy duties for the office of NYC Mayor.

not anything to do with the office.

Last edited Fri Jun 6, 2025, 01:52 PM - Edit history (2)

Wanting equal rights for Palestinians doesn’t make one Anti-Semitic.

I'm finished with this conversation.

to the job of NYC Mayor.

That's just a fact

but I agree, I don't think endorsing this guy was one of her better decisions.

dishonest answer.
When people talk about antisemitism, we know what they are referring to.
Flippancy shows a person uninterested in a legitimate discussion.

Please don't respond.

to only refer to one group of semetic people. But the truth is that Palestinians and other Arab people are indeed semetic.

Neither are Akkadians, Phoenicians, Samaritans and Assyrians, who are also semitic.

Curious how applicable you would find the term "Palestinian" to Palestinians Arabs. After all, there are eight million Palestinians who are Jewish., and they are being referred to as Israelis. Was the term "Palestinian" coopted?

The Mayor of NYC is a globally prominent office.

but there are still no foreign policy duties or powers as part of the office.

You’d shrug it off as unrelated to the duties of the Mayor of NYC?

to the office of NYC Mayor. There are more important positions that have to do with being Mayor.

duties, or powers for the mayor in a super major USA city which also hosts The U.N.; with one of or the largest Jewish population in the country!

The Jewish NYC'rs religiously range through secular, cultural, reform, conservative, orthodox, to ultra-orthodox.
Politically; Social Democrat, Democratic (sort of right of center, center, liberal), Progressive, Republican/?Magat, Conservatives, Independent, and ?a few anarchists.
It's quite a varied group!

There are certain zeitgeists here which include Jews supporting Israel to various degrees. Most are Zionists, but whether they support Netanyahu, or not, is a whole different story! And those opinions could go back a long way (decades) re especially since Netanyahi was anti-Itzak Rabin!

To our DU Jews of NYC; have I properly, with nuance representatived you correctly?
I did live in one neighborhood that was 2/3rds Jewish from secular to conservative from 7 grs old to late teen. Then another for a few decades that was ?about 50% maybe a bit more, or a bit less, though it had two temples about 1 block away from each other - might have been different; like conservative, and reform.
Corrections, please, if needed.

to the job of Mayor of New York City.

As is his opinion of Italy, Brazil, Japan or any other country on the face of the earth. NYC Mayor has nothing to do with foreign policy.

Means hostility toward Jews, not semitic people in general. When someone is accused of beimg antisemitic, it means they are accusing them of hating Jews. Being "pro Palestinian" is not a defense of that accusation. I'm getting really sick of seeing this.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/antisemitism

everyone would know what "antisemitic" means.
It does not mean semitic people.

The term was coined:

The term "Antisemitismus" was popularized in 1879 by German publicist and agitator Wilhelm Marr in a pamphlet advocating for the removal of Jews from Germany.

they are buying into the same racism that defined Aryan as the "master race"

Is that really your position?

on land controlled by Israel that it would like to eventually annex.

I don't see it as being inherently antisemitic for Palestinians, or people who support them, to be default classified as 2nd class citizens, or non-citizens, in a country that they too call home.

Is it anti-Christian to be against the US being officially classified as a Christian state?

I'm probably going to be very sorry I waded into this.

There have been Arab members of the Knesset since 1949. Currently there are 120 seats in the Knesset, and 11 of them are held by Palestinian citizens of Israel. A Palestinian citizen of Israel sits on the Supreme Court.

The analogy about the US does not really hold because the US was not established as a Christian state. Israel was founded as a Jewish state and that has been its classification from the start.

Including Amnesty International

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/02/israels-apartheid-against-palestinians-a-cruel-system-of-domination-and-a-crime-against-humanity/

That report still gets dredged up from time to time, even though its conclusion that Israel is an apartheid state were rejected by the US, the UK, France, Germany, and the EU in 2022 when it was released.

I'm not sure what you mean when you write "not according to most independent human rights groups", but its hard to argue with the facts. 21% of Israel's citizens are Arab/Palestinian. They are free to vote, hold government office, sit in the Knesset, serve on the Supreme Court and practice their religion in any one of the 400+ mosques in Israel.

And Israel actually has a significant non Jewish population unlike the others .

anymore than it got to redefine “genocide” in 2025.

As for the apartheid report,

Also, the report itself has wide acceptance among almost all major human rights groups. That wouldn't be the case if it were truly not credible.

Name the “almost all major human rights groups” that you are referencing.

I get it. Folks want to justify Mandami’s refusal to recognize Israel as either a Jewish state or as a country where equal rights are enjoyed by all citizens, including Palestinian citizens of Israel, Moslems, Christians, atheists, agnostics, and the LGBTQ community.

There is no justification. That’s why Mandami spins his wheels and repeats the same one sentence talking point every time he’s asked the question.

His talking point is that he wants equal rights for all in Israel. There are equal rights in Israel.

Mandami should have the courage of his convictions and say what he really means, even if it costs him the mayor’s race.

He’s a member of the DSA, a supporter of BDS who until recently identified as an anti-Zionist and who actively supported the anti-Democratic Party “Vote Uncommitted - Leave It Blank” movement. He’s stood next to Hamas apologist, anti-Semite Nerdeen Kiswani at anti-Israel rallies.

He needs to own who he is.

UNHCR, the group at the ICC and judges that indicted Netanyahu, to name a few.

All are reputable organizations that do not have any kind of economic or diplomatic stake or investment in Israel. The democracies you refer to however, do.

NYC is home to the UN, it houses the most foreign consulates in the US with a possible exception of DC, it is one of the largest destinations for foreign travelers in the world, one of the world's leading financial centers, and it is a favorite target for global terrorism.

Affecting and being affected by foreign policy on a daily basis is baked into the job of a NYC mayor.

Hot issue there Especially with this guy up three saying "Israel doesn't have a right to exist".

Sounds like a damned nazi!

Aloha, Cha! 🌺

And yet in the Israelí poll that was published in Haaretz this week,
82% of Jewish Israelí respondents said they support the Israelí Government’s policy of forcibly removng ALL palestinians out of Israel.

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2025-05-28/ty-article-magazine/.premium/yes-to-transfer-82-of-jewish-israelis-back-expelling-gazans/00000197-12a4-df22-a9d7-9ef6af930000

The article doesn’t include that quote.

at the Mayoral Debate last night.. Just as the Times of Israel reported.

Someone PM me.. I didn't see it but I trust this person.

but he did not say that he thinks Israel should not exist. His response was that he supported a democratic Israel with equal rights for all.

What an interesting idea.

However politically that is not going to play in NYC and I suspect in most of the country.

that Mamdani Did say that at the Mayoral Debate last night.. Just as the Times of Israel reported.

Someone PM me.. I didn't see it but I trust this person.

Last edited Fri Jun 6, 2025, 12:05 AM - Edit history (1)

Gaza and Hamas?

What I was trying to explain is what he did say in the debate. He found the most innocuous way to state his position, but no mattered how said it is not a popular position. What is clear is he is against Zionism.

I am wondering what his position is on Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and scores of other countries too numerous to mention. If he is truly principled in his position, it would mean that he is denying a right to exist to an overwhelming majority of world's sovereign states.

Or, maybe, he is just a hypocrite.

That does not mean that he denies any country the right to exist.

Taken just as he stated it, how does this disagree with our declaration of Independence, which states all men are created equal, was written when there were slaves and women had far fewer rights then men.

more interesting, what he said agrees with the Israeli declaration of Independence itself. That document includes "it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all inhabitants irrespective of religion, race, or sex ....

In both founding documents, the statement -close to what he said - can be seen as aspirational and not fully met. As to other ME countries, they do not come close to meeting a goal like this and most have never aspired to do so.

Here, I think two things. If he ever had a remote chance of winning, that answer ended it. The second is the that the question itself is problematic because it includes the phrase "as a Jewish state". It can be seen as asks him to accept not just Israel as a country, but Zionism. In a time where people as prominent as Trump, Netanyahu and some RW members of Knesset have spoken of removing Palestinians from Gaza and settlers are "settling" increasing more of the West Bank, for some who favor Palestinian rights this may be a step too far.

is a hell of a different proposition. And it radically disagrees with our Declaration of Independence, which cites the inalienable rights as a foundation to CREATE a new state, not DENY any other state's existence. Yhat was close to what he said, but not what he said.

I know, he was only asked about one state, but the underlying principle behind his response is what disturbs me. The fact that there is no record of him applying the same condition, attained by only a minority of currently existing states, to any other state in the world points to hypocrisy at the foundation of his statement. Israel, like the US, not living up o its declarations is no grounds for denying its existence. As you noted. there are a tone of countries that never aspired to anything close, but their right to exist is never denied to them.

Likewise, nobody has an Issue with France referring to itself as a state for the French, or Turkey, or Italy referring to itself as a Catholic state, or a multitude of Muslim states referring to themselvesin their foundidg documents as exactly that: Muslim states.

He did not even say he denied Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. Instead he spoke to an Israel he would want.

Not to equate them, but ...

How would you have answered the question decades ago of whether South Africa had the right to exist as an apartheid state?

I picked this only because it would be a state you would agree was violating international norms. Even if I thought countries had the right to make domestic laws, I would not have been able to say yes. For him, it might be that agreeing to Israel as a Jewish state means he agrees, rightly or wrongly, that he is agreeing that nonJews have fewer rights.

You are inferring that is because he rejects their right to exist as a Jewish state, but he did not say that. REFUSING TO ANSWER A QUESTION does not mean others can assign an answer. For a Zionist, the answer is easy. It is more complicated for others. ( I think they should answer that a country's right to exist does not depend on "me" approving all their actions and as such Israel unconditionally has a right to exist.)

The question did serve the purpose of those asking as it very likely eliminated any chance that he would win the nomination, which were not high to begin with.

I am inferring his position based on his previous statements. I am inferring his position based on his reluctance to change that position. I am not assigning any particular answer to him, I am assigning absence of an answer to a direct question to him. His answer evaded the question instead of addressing it.

And his answer was clearly conditional: Israel, not Israel as a Jewish state, has a right to exist as a state with equal rights. There is nothing to infer here. He refused to address Israel as a Jewish state, and further, Israel as a not Jewish state has a right to exist as a state with equal rights.

No such requirement had ever been imposed on any other state as a condition for its existence. Ever.

It's an important distinction.

He said:
"Israel has a right to exist as a state with equal rights.”

As in equal rights for all its citizens.

In spite of all the usual talking points I've seen on this thread (judges! Knesset members!) the sad reality is that Palestinian Citizens of Israel are second-class citizens in myriad ways. From housing (they mostly are confined to crowded "Arab" areas), education, infrastructure, allocation of resources - all the way to being deprived of their right to self-determination. The 2018 Nation State Law, for example, accords that right exclusively to Jewish people.

Palestinians in Israel live in the land of their ancestors as second-class citizens who are viewed with distrust and condescension by Israeli Jews who want them gone. To wit, a recent poll found that more than half of Israeli Jews want their OWN Palestinian citizens "transferred" or forcibly expelled, to other countries. Oh my.

Would you want your own country, the only one you have, not only to treat you as second-class, but live with the knowledge you are unwanted and your fellow citizens don't care you have no place else to go, they just want you GONE? What a terrible predicament for human beings.

What is wrong with equality?

Perfectly said my friend 👍

"Israel has a right to exist as a state with equal rights.”

If this is his ground rule for affording a sovereign state the right to exist, he is denying that right to an overwhelming majority of the world's sovereign states.

Or he is being a thinly disguised hypocrite.

The primary voters can do better. NY has a large and active Jewish community, don't they? Could he win the primary be alienating them all?

If the OP is true, he could lose the GE if the Jewish community comes out strongly against him.

Also, why would AOC endorse him if this is true?

WTH!

I would totally PASS on him if I lived in NYC!



Mahalo, lapucelle

of NYC?

TY, John

TY

Personally two not so good choices for NYC.

If hey know their options and they still make those choices.

my opinion from Thousands of Miles away.



ETA~ Although I did used to live in NY.

We don't have local major networks in NJ. I like the 5:30 to 6:30 local ABC news crew. But between our Governor race and NY City Mayor - its relentless.

Its going to a 3 way race between Sliwa (R), Adams (I) and the Democratic Nominee.

NYers are pragmatic - so they'll make the pragmatic decision.