Mayor Zoran Mamdani recently stated, “I don’t think we should buy Israeli bonds. We’re not going to buy bonds for the debt of other sovereign countries,” trying to frame his opposition to Israel as merely following neutral guidelines.
This response followed City Auditor Mark Levine’s suggestion about potentially channeling some of the city’s pension fund into Israeli bonds. However, it’s a misleading statement wrapped around a broader agenda. New York City doesn’t purchase bonds directly, but it has billions tied up in funds that encompass significant foreign bond investments.
Levine’s office confirmed that the city holds millions in government bonds from various countries through asset management firms.
This isn’t a new tactic for Mamdani. On his first day as mayor, he reversed several executive orders from his predecessor, Eric Adams, claiming they were compromised by federal investigations. Essentially, it appeared as a legal pretext to enable the new administration’s anti-Israel actions.
When you listen to him, he seems rational, but his biases are apparent and quite striking.
Following a protest at a synagogue in the Upper East Side, where demonstrators blocked access and shouted at attendees, Mamdani’s spokesperson issued a tepid statement. The then-mayor-elect said he believed all New Yorkers should have the freedom to attend their places of worship without fear. However, he pointed out that “These sacred spaces should not be used to facilitate activities that violate international law.”
But what does that even mean? The event at the synagogue was an informational session on immigration to Israel, which protesters labeled a “sale of stolen land.”
There was no land sale involved, and it’s questionable whether the mayor has the authority to interpret or enforce international law. The primary concern should be ensuring safety at the synagogue.
Mamdani’s promise to arrest Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu if he visits is another layer of this complex issue. He tries to frame it as adhering to U.S. law, but it seems more like a cover for his predetermined stance.
This wordplay may allow supporters to perceive him as neutral, yet this kind of dishonesty only heightens the unease among those wary of his intentions.
Building a reputation based on outright falsehoods about policies ultimately undermines everything one hopes to achieve.
