NYC mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani defends BDS support amid Israel controversy
Democratic socialist mayoral hopeful Zohran Mamdani doubled down on his support for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement against Israel — and refused to say the country has a right to exist as a Jewish state.
Mamdani stayed firm in his support for the Palestinian-led BDS effort, calling it a "legitimate movement," during a Q&A with Democratic primary candidates hosted by the UJA-Federation of New York on Thursday evening.
"My support for BDS is consistent with my core of my politics, which is non-violence," the Queens assemblyman said when pressed by Jewish Insider's editor-in-chief, Josh Kraushaar.
"I think that it is a legitimate movement when you are seeking to find compliance with international law," he said.
"The effectiveness of tactics of boycott, divestment and sanctions in order to motivate that compliance at the state level, on an individual level and that's where my support for it comes from."
The state assemblyman from Queens said he believes Israel has a right to exist. But when pushed on whether it should exist as a Jewish state, he carefully sidestepped.
"I believe Israel has a right to exist, and it has a right to exist also with equal rights for all," he said.
Mamdani, a Democratic Socialists of America-backed politician, was peppered with questions about his stance on Israel during the event from the UJA-Federation, a massive philanthropic group supporting the Jewish community.
The forum came just days after The Post unearthed a social media clip of the pro-Palestinian assemblyman leading a "BDS" chant during a May 11, 2021, anti-Israel protest.
Despite Mamdani's open criticism of Israel, the lawmaker received a fairly warm welcome from those in attendance, according to recordings obtained by The Post, which, along with other press, was barred from entry at the door.
Those inside the event, which took place some 24 hours after a pro-Palestinian radical gunned down two innocent Israeli Embassy staff members in Washington, DC, described the security as "wild," as organizers revoked the tickets of several people.
During his roughly 20-minute appearance, moderators asked Mamdani about his remarks that, if elected mayor, he would order the NYPD to arrest Benjamin Netanyahu if the Israeli prime minister ever set foot in the Big Apple.
"Ultimately, my position is one that I believe our city should be in compliance with international law," Mamdani said, noting the International Criminal Court has issued a warrant for the Israeli leader, adding that he'd have the same answer if he was asked the question about Russian President Vladimir Putin.
"What troubles me greatly is that Benjamin Netanyahu has also issued military commands from this very city when visiting it," he said.
Mamdani campaign spokesman Andrew Epstein said the candidate has been "consistent" in his beliefs regarding Israel.
"Zohran has been consistent in his belief that Israel has the right to exist, a responsibility to adhere to international law, and that he supports non-violent movements to ensure compliance with that law," Epstein said in a statement Friday.
"He was heartened by the warm reception last night to his vision for a New York that's safe and affordable for everyone."
Mamdani, who has repeatedly come up second in the polls vying for the Democratic nomination, behind ex-Gov. Andrew Cuomo, has recently been dogged by his anti-Israel rhetoric.
He faced blowback from the Jewish community for failing to sign onto a pair of resolutions recognizing Israel and the Holocaust, in what his campaign wrote off as a procedural error.
The revelation came just days after he got the endorsement of anti-Israel ex-"Squad" member Rep. Jamaal Bowman in the race for mayor of New York City, which is home to the largest population of Jews outside Israel.
The lawmaker also pushed the "Not On Our Dime Act," which would have stopped New York nonprofits from supporting any groups that are involved with West Bank settlements.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
21 minutes ago
- Fox News
Cuomo attacked during debate by fellow Dems for allegedly lying to Congress about COVID nursing home scandal
Former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo was blasted by fellow Democrats running against him to be the next mayor of New York City for lying to Congress, an allegation pushed by Republicans that the Trump administration is currently investigating. Cuomo repeatedly dismissed questions throughout Wednesday night's debate on whether he lied to Congress about his role in drafting a New York State Department of Health report that officials determined had undercounted the number of nursing home deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic. Instead, Cuomo blasted the current investigation as a symptom of partisan politics and insisted the report in question "did not undercount the deaths." "The people died and he still won't answer your questions," Cuomo's opponent, Michael Blake, a former state assemblyman from the Bronx, said after Cuomo failed to provide a straight answer. Blake's retort resulted in one of the debate moderators asking Cuomo once again to respond to the allegations that he lied to Congress about his role in drafting the report that undercounted the number of COVID-19 nursing home deaths. This time, he engaged. "No, I told Congress the truth," Cuomo relented. "No, we did not undercount any deaths," he added. "When they are all counted, we're number 38 out of 50, which I think, shows that compared to what other states went through, we had it first and worst, and that only 12 states had a lower rate of death – we should really be thanking the women and men who worked on those things." "It's just a yes or no question," the moderator shot back at Cuomo. "Were you involved in the producing of that report?" However, Cuomo still did not address the question directly, leading to laughter from his opponents. "It's not only that Andrew Cuomo lied to Congress – which is perjury – he also lied to the grieving families whose loved ones he sent in to those nursing homes to protect his $5 million book deal," said Brad Lander, New York City's comptroller. "That's corruption." Last month, the Trump administration's Department of Justice opened a criminal investigation to get to the bottom of whether Cuomo lied to Congress about the decisions he made during the COVID-19 pandemic while serving as governor. In March 2020, Cuomo issued a directive that initially barred nursing homes from refusing to accept patients who had tested positive for COVID-19. The directive was meant to free up beds for overwhelmed hospitals, but more than 9,000 recovering coronavirus patients were ultimately released from hospitals into nursing homes under the directive, which was later rescinded amid speculation that it had accelerated outbreaks. Subsequently, a report released in March 2022 by the New York state comptroller found Cuomo's Health Department "was not transparent in its reporting of COVID-19 deaths in nursing homes" and it "understated the number of deaths at nursing homes by as much as 50%" during some points of the pandemic. New York Attorney General Letitia James similarly released a report amid the pandemic showing New York state nursing home deaths had been undercounted.
New York Times
23 minutes ago
- New York Times
Trump's Travel Ban Could Shake Up International Sporting Events
The proclamation President Trump's signed this week banning travel to the United States by people from a dozen countries makes an exception for athletes, coaches and support staff for 'major sporting events,' including the World Cup and the Olympics. What qualifies as a major sporting event remains to be seen. Mr. Trump's proclamation declaring the ban, issued on Wednesday, says that the secretary of state, Marco Rubio, will determine which events can receive an exemption. A host of international sporting events are planned in the United States over the next months and years. While some of the countries on the ban list, like Chad and Yemen, are not traditional sporting powers, others, like Iran and Haiti, could well expect to send athletes to the United States for a range of competitions. Mr. Trump also imposed a lower level of restrictions on seven other countries, including Cuba, a strong player on the international sporting stage, and Venezuela. Decisions will have to be made quickly. The CONCACAF Gold Cup, the men's soccer championship for North American, Central American and Caribbean nations, begins June 14 and will be played at sites across the United States (and one in Canada). Haiti has qualified for the competition and is scheduled to play games in San Diego, Houston and Arlington, Texas. The Club World Cup, the world championship for men's club soccer teams, also begins June 14 in several U.S. cities. No team based in a country on the banned list has qualified, but the teams involved include players and staff members from all over the world. CONCACAF, which runs the Gold Cup, and FIFA, which runs the Club World Cup, did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Other events coming to the United States this year — including the under-19 softball World Cup and the world skateboarding championships — are less likely to be considered 'major' events. There are also big races, like the Chicago and New York marathons in the fall. Mr. Rubio may find himself facing a lot of judgment calls. The implications for college athletics, where rosters in many sports are dotted with international students, are also unclear. Both events that are explicitly exempted from the ban — the men's soccer World Cup and the Summer Olympics — are coming to the United States after this year. The World Cup is scheduled for 2026, and Iran has already qualified. (Hosting duties will be shared with Canada and Mexico.) Los Angeles will host the Summer Olympics in 2028.
Forbes
23 minutes ago
- Forbes
Artificial Intelligence Collaboration and Indirect Regulatory Lag
WASHINGTON, DC - MAY 16: Samuel Altman, CEO of OpenAI, testifies before the Senate Judiciary ... More Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law May 16, 2023 in Washington, DC. The committee held an oversight hearing to examine A.I., focusing on rules for artificial intelligence. (Photo by) Steve Jobs often downplayed his accomplishments by saying that 'creativity is just connecting things.' Regardless of whether this affects the way you understand his legacy, it is beyond the range of doubt that most innovation comes from interdisciplinary efforts. Everyone agrees that if AI is to exponentially increase collaboration across disciplines, the laws must not lag too far behind technology. The following explores how a less obvious interpretation of this phrase will help us do what Jobs explained was the logic behind his genius The Regulatory Lag What most people mean when they say that legislation and regulation have difficulty keeping pace with the rate of innovation because the innovation and its consequences are not well known until well after the product hits the market. While that is true, it only tells half of the story. Technological innovations also put more attenuated branches of the law under pressure to adjust. These are second-order, more indirect legal effects, where whole sets of laws—originally unrelated to the new technology—have to adapt to enable society to maximize the full potential of the innovation. One classic example comes from the time right after the Internet became mainstream. After digital communication and connectivity became widespread and expedited international communication and commercial relations, nations discovered that barriers to cross-border trade and investment were getting in the way. Barriers such as tariffs and outdated investment FDI partnership requirements—had to be lowered or eliminated if the Internet was to be an effective catalyst to global economic growth. Neoliberal Reforms When the internet emerged in the 1990s, much attention went to laws that directly regulated it—such as data privacy, digital speech, and cybersecurity. But some of the most important legal changes were not about the internet itself. They were about removing indirect legal barriers that stood in the way of its broader economic and social potential. Cross-border trade and investment rules, for instance, had to evolve. Tariffs on goods, restrictions on foreign ownership, and outdated service regulations had little to do with the internet as a technology, but everything to do with whether global e-commerce, remote work, and digital entrepreneurship could flourish. These indirect legal constraints were largely overlooked in early internet governance debates, yet their reform was essential to unleashing the internet's full power. Artificial Intelligence and Indirect Barriers A comparable story is starting to unfold with artificial intelligence. While much of the focus when talking about law and AI has been given to algorithmic accountability and data privacy, there is also an opportunity for a larger societal return from AI in its ability to reduce barriers between disciplines. AI is increasing the viability of interdisciplinary work because it can synthesize, translate, and apply knowledge across domains in ways that make cross-field collaboration more essential. Already we are seeing marriages of law and computer science, medicine and machine learning, environmental modeling, and language processing. AI is a general-purpose technology that rewards those who are capable of marrying insights across disciplines. In that sense, the AI era is also the era of interdisciplinary boundary-blurring opportunities triggered by AI are up against legal barriers to entry across disciplines and professions. In many professions, it requires learning a patchwork of licensure regimes and intractable definitions of domain knowledge to gain the right to practice or contribute constructively. While some of these regulations are generally intended to protect public interests, they can also hinder innovation and prevent new interdisciplinary practices from gaining traction. To achieve the full potential of AI-enabled collaboration, many of these legal barriers need to be eliminated—or at least reimagined. We are starting to see some positive movements. For example, a few states are starting to grant nurse practitioners and physician assistants greater autonomy in clinical decision-making, and that's a step toward cross-disciplinary collaboration of healthcare and AI diagnostics. For now, this is a move in the right direction. However, In some other fields, the professional rules of engagement support silos. This must change if we're going to be serious about enabling AI to help us crack complex, interdependent problems. Legislators and regulators cannot focus exclusively on the bark that protects the tree of change, they must also focus on the hidden network of roots that that quietly nourish and sustain it.
