Zohran Mamdani - Democratic Socialist Mayor of NYC

[falafel]

Welcome to the Mamdani leadership. Within minutes of being sworn into office Mamdani shows his true colors.. All his talk of human rights being the issue with Israel, seems rather disingenuous considering his immediate actions. We'll see if he draws up some other Executive Order, but if he had plans to do so, I would think he would have done it as soon as he rescinded this. Yet, he did not. Of course organizations supportive of Palestine, ME (CAIR, NY-CLU) etc. praise this decision as "A restoration of free speech" considering that is not something readily available in the ME it is rather laughable.

Quotes from several articles:

“On his very first day as New York City Mayor Mamdani shows his true face: He scraps the IHRA definition of antisemitism and lifts restrictions on boycotting Israel. This isn’t leadership. It’s antisemitic gasoline on an open fire,” Israel’s foreign ministry said in a post.

Mamdani became mayor just after midnight on New Year’s Eve, beginning a term that Democrats hope will energize the party ahead of the 2026 midterms. The 34-year-old democratic socialist campaigned on an ambitious but costly agenda, including universal free childcare and free buses, financed in part by higher taxes on corporations and the wealthy.

Friday’s public rebuke from Israel’s government adds an international dimension to a controversy already unfolding at home. On Thursday, Jewish civil rights groups criticized the removal of posts related to combating antisemitism from the official @NYCMayor X account shortly after Mamdani assumed office, warning that the move risked sending the wrong signal at a particularly sensitive moment.


https://www.politico.eu/article/isra...st-day-office/


Newly inaugurated New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani rescinded a series of executive orders on his first day in office on Thursday, including one that deemed anti-Zionist rhetoric as antisemitic.

His predecessor, Eric Adams, signed the order adopting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's definition of antisemitism, which includes clauses in its definition such as "Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor," and "Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations."

Other clauses include "Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust," "Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis," or "Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel."


https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antis...article-882099

I have a problem with any kind of law or order that restricts speech, including speech that might be considered "antisemitic". Of course, that does not mean I support such language. But what is the harm in returning speech to a level playing field? As far as I am aware, there is no such thing as being anti-palestinian or anti-arabic. Call them the ugliest names in the book. But do the same to a person of jewish decent and its a hate crime.

[BigFatMeanie]

I have a problem with any kind of law or order that restricts speech, including speech that might be considered "antisemitic". Of course, that does not mean I support such language. But what is the harm in returning speech to a level playing field? As far as I am aware, there is no such thing as being anti-palestinian or anti-arabic. Call them the ugliest names in the book. But do the same to a person of jewish decent and its a hate crime.

Dude, are you for real? You can not possibly be serious with those two sentences above.

[chrisrenrut]

Dude, are you for real? You can not possibly be serious with those two sentences above.

codified by Executive Order?

[dabrockster]

I have a problem with any kind of law or order that restricts speech, including speech that might be considered "antisemitic". Of course, that does not mean I support such language. But what is the harm in returning speech to a level playing field? As far as I am aware, there is no such thing as being anti-palestinian or anti-arabic. Call them the ugliest names in the book. But do the same to a person of jewish decent and it’s you completely a hate crime.

Are you completely forgetting the massive protests in NYC and other colleges last summer over this and targeting of Jewish students.

The optics of this is terrible. He cloaked his antisemitism in free speech when in reality he is opening the flood gates on this again. There is a difference in free speech and what we all witnessed last year and the year prior after the attack on innocent Israelis. He is signaling to his antisemitism base it is OK to go back to what we all saw.

[PaloAltoCougar]

This line from Mamdani's inaugural speech is very troubling to me; "We will replace the frigidity of rugged individualism with the warmth of collectivism". I'm just finishing Autopsy for an Empire, written in the '90s by a Kremlin insider with lengthy chapters about each of the seven General Secretaries (Lenin to Gorbachev), and that line could have been written by any of their speechwriters.

[Jeff Lebowski]

This line from Mamdani's inaugural speech is very troubling to me; "We will replace the frigidity of rugged individualism with the warmth of collectivism". I'm just finishing Autopsy for an Empire, written in the '90s by a Kremlin insider with lengthy chapters about each of the seven General Secretaries (Lenin to Gorbachev), and that line could have been written by any of their speechwriters.

That has to be one of the dumbest lines I’ve ever heard in my life. Good Lord.

Here are some warm collectivism tanks, confronting the frigidity of rugged individualism.

IMG_1374.jpeg

[falafel]

Dude, are you for real? You can not possibly be serious with those two sentences above.

Why not? My point is, why is there a specific definition of antisemitism pronounced by the government? Is antisemitism a crime? Is it a crime to hate an ethnic group? Certainly it is terrible, abhorrent, counterproductive, etc. But a crime? No. It is not a crime to hate a particular ethnic group. Violence against a particular ethnic group should be handled the way violence against any person or group would be handled under the law. I cannot see any reason that such a definition is necessary as adopted by a government. Advocate for love, peace, acceptance, etc. But by defining antisemitism, you are trying to control speech and behavior, not crime.

Are you completely forgetting the massive protests in NYC and other colleges last summer over this and targeting of Jewish students.

The optics of this is terrible. He cloaked his antisemitism in free speech when in reality he is opening the flood gates on this again. There is a difference in free speech and what we all witnessed last year and the year prior after the attack on innocent Israelis. He is signaling to his antisemitism base it is OK to go back to what we all saw.

No, I don't think I am forgetting those protests.

Also, I disagree that Mamdani is signaling to his base that its okay to go back to committing violence against jewish students or jewish people in general. I think you are being hyperbolic for effect.

[dabrockster]

We shall see what triggers in the months to come and the summer. His words and speeches chilling considering this communist is running the largest city in our county that is a driver of our economy.

[falafel]

We shall see what triggers in the months to come and the summer. His words and speeches chilling considering this communist is running the largest city in our county that is a driver of our economy.

He's not a communist. He's a democratic socialist. Again, you are being hyperbolic for effect.

Let's just be precise and clear. Don't make stuff up if your argument is not as strong as you'd like.

[dabrockster]

He's not a communist. He's a democratic socialist. Again, you are being hyperbolic for effect.

Let's just be precise and clear. Don't make stuff up if your argument is not as strong as you'd like.

[Donuthole]

Sorry, anyone who supports Trump “because they like his policies” or because “he has preserved the Supreme Court” has forfeited the right to use that emoji. And here I thought you weren’t a fan of hypocrisy.

[Jeff Lebowski]

He's not a communist. He's a democratic socialist. Again, you are being hyperbolic for effect.

Let's just be precise and clear. Don't make stuff up if your argument is not as strong as you'd like.

Yeah he’s a Democratic socialist and a complete idiot, but he will still be hamstrung by the US Constitution. So that’s not get too carried away.

[dabrockster]

Sorry, anyone who supports Trump “because they like his policies” or because “he has preserved the Supreme Court” has forfeited the right to use that emoji. And here I thought you weren’t a fan of hypocrisy.

Anyone with TDS(Since you are hell-bent to label me as such.) has little room to speak..

For those thinking he is full blown socialist. PAC provided an alarming statement from his speech that shows his social-collectivism which align with communism. Any idea that places individualism as immorally wrong and places the idea of collectivism as morally right should be concerned by this ideology.

[frank ryan]

Anyone with TDS(Since you are hell-bent to label me as such.) has little room to speak..

For those thinking he is full blown socialist. PAC provided an alarming statement from his speech that shows his social-collectivism which align with communism. Any idea that places individualism as immorally wrong and places the idea of collectivism as morally right should be concerned by this ideology.

He's not a communist.

[Moliere]

He's not a communist.

He’s not, but some of his political platform leans communist. State owned grocery stores is a good example.