CoolerOpposide

First, people brought that up literally all of the time regarding arresting Netanyahu and still do, including people on the left.

Second, I’d probably say Israel is the nexus of Zionism. Not downplaying that NYC is important, but let’s be serious. Yes, internationalism and solidarity are the key to socialism. It would be really concerning if he was calling himself a communist and not expressing these things, but he ran as a democratic socialist local politician in the heart of global capital. There’s a certain balancing act to getting anything done effectively while also achieving the other main idea of undoing decades of antisocialist propaganda tied to the very word socialism itself. Zohran detractors here seem to be under the impression that people who supported him expected him to secede from Amerikkka and declare a protracted people’s war or something. Nobody expected socialism in one city.

Third, what policy? You keep posting this screenshot as if Zohran said this for sure and committed to a policy in it. It’s an article quoting a rabbi who’s “quoting” Zohran. We don’t know exactly what he said, and you’re again just assuming worst intent from Zohran sourced from the third step of whisper down the lane that first went through a Zionist rabbi and then the Zionist, openly anti-Zohran press.

Fourth, NYC is already slated to divest at least from Israeli bonds, and Zohran hasn’t made any indication he’d be urging his comptroller to reinvest in them, so I’d say yes, he does seem interested in at least that much.

Don’t these endless arguments based around your assumption of worst possible intent exhaust you? He hasn’t even been inaugurated yet. No policy has been implemented. You haven’t seen one day of a Zohran administration, and you’re saying shit like

“you think the below policy is a benign one that definitely won’t make wearing a keffiyeh within 500m of a synagogue a hate crime (prosecuted with the new funding provided by the Mamdani gov)?”

What policy? The policy Zohran is never confirmed to have even mentioned, that came to print after a Zionist rabbi and Zionist, anti-Zohran media put it into print? And then you just go next level on it and throw down that his increase in hate crime prevention funding (which is good), not just for antisemitism (which still would be ok), is going to make wearing a keffiyeh within half a kilometer of a synagogue a hate crime? What are we doing here? What are you even talking about? PLEASE, for your own sake, give it a rest.

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

Like… health reasons aside what if I just don’t want to get sick because I enjoy breathing through my nose?

Same

I don’t think that part of the TOS would hold up in court honestly. The platform is built to communicate “intelligently” with the user, and does terminate other processes that violate TOS. It wouldn’t be unreasonable for the user to expect similar action here.

Also please mark your post NSFW and content warn self harm

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.

Ironically, it’s probably objectively one of the safest places in the world to be Jewish

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.

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.

Me at work constantly being asked why I still wear a mask indoors while there’s always at least one coworker coughing up the nastiest storm

Inshallah we will reestablish the Dithmarschen Peasants’ Republic

We can definitely get those numbers up