Voters in the largest city in America are choosing a Democratic nominee for mayor via ranked-choice voting. The crowded field is led by former governor Andrew Cuomo, who resigned from the state’s top office four years ago following sexual harassment allegations; state Assemblymember Zohran Mamdani, who snagged key endorsements from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York); Comptroller Brad Lander, who made headlines when he was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement at an immigration hearing last week; and City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams.
This is a ranked-choice primary – only first-choice votes will be tabulated on election night. Final vote calculations will be released July 1 and updated weekly until all ballots are counted. Republican Curtis Sliwa is uncontested in his primary.
Well he is a liberal zionist. I don't think it really matters, and I don't know if I would say anything different to him were I in his position (I don't think it would win a lot of votes to say "I would make use of the armed forces of the NYPD to assist Hamas with doing 1000 more Al Aqsa Floods"). Not to mention he will probably have to be fighting the state government on everything.
He is? I interpreted his response in that debate as endorsing the one-state solution but maybe I was wrong?
It's a bit tomato tomahto. In theory, if Israel recognizes equal rights for Palestinians, then that's great and it would be a one state solution. In practice, that will never happen as long as "Israel" occupies Palestine. So if he was running for a position where his beliefs about Occupied Palestine actually mattered, I would want him to be pressed on how he thinks Israel should become a country where equal rights for Jews and Arabs are upheld, because that's the difference between liberal zionism and antizionism (liberal zionists would be happy to just wait for equal rights to materialize from nothing, antizionists believe in resistance and overthrowing the occupiers).
I think he already knows this and his position is to not do any "no nos" and to at most lie by omission rather than lie outright. Would he have won if he didn't play that game anyway? Tough to say at this point; perhaps it would have been closer but I think he actually would have but I don't think zohran thought he would have at the time
imagine if everyone in the west bank/gaza and the diapora could vote to elect seats into the knesset... it would never happen.... but we could just advocate for it anyway and use it as a shield to beat the zios back with and what can they say? this would never happen but if it actually did I could only assume the knesset would at some point vote to change the name of the state to palestine.<---- no liberal zionist actually desires to allow this to happen but zohrans position was to exist in this weird position of thought so he didn't have to sacrifice his views on the question of Palestinians while still being able to stay stuff like "israel has a right to exist with equal rights" .
Yeah I absolutely agree which is why I said it's only a technical difference, not to mention it simply doesn't matter as mayor of NYC. He's a good lad.
Palestinians in the West Bank literally live under military occupation, are not protected by Israeli law, and are tried at Israeli military courts. And Arab Israelis are still broadly discriminated against in an Apartheid system that's internationally recognized as such. Just one example: Jewish neighborhoods are required to be built with bomb shelters, while Arab neighborhoods have no such requirement and it must be requested for a shelter to be built; in practice, they are almost never built. That's why casualties from rocket attacks on Israel are disproportionately Arab Israelis. And that's the situation for Arab Israeli citizens!
Very strange twisting of the words where Israel claims the land but the people who actually live there aren't included in the "people-having-rights" quota. I wonder why you're defining it like that. Hmmmmmm. Slaves weren't considered citizens, so the US constitution never lied about equal rights, either, I guess. "I'm not touching you".
Someone should tell Israel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_occupation_of_the_West_Bank
That does not at all contradict what I said or what I linked. Explain.
The Palestinian Authority is not sovereign, they are under Israeli Occupation. What good are rights and citizenship from the PA if you still get detained by IDF soldiers at IDF checkpoints and tried at Israeli military courts?
Al Jazeera source about Jewish Israeli citizens excluding Arabs from shelters. There was also a source on Hexbear last week explaining how new developments for Arab Israelis almost never get bomb shelters built, but I can't find it now. Either way, are Arabic people just more prone to getting hit by missiles? What else could explain it.
Are you really trying to downplay a system that's recognized internationally by pretty much everyone except the US as apartheid as simply ragebait? Listen to yourself! Bring the hasbara to reddit or lemmy.world, not a place where people are prepared to show how false it is.
You can just read the article I linked, unless you want to claim Al Jazeera fabricated multiple testimonies.
Why should someone reading this thread trust you - an account that only posts to start arguments over minutiae - claiming that the phenomenon of Arab Israelis being left out to die outside of Israeli bomb shelters when you say it's made up, over Al Jazeera, who has multiple testimonies from people who experienced it? Why shouldn't a bystander just immediately identify you as a charlatan?
It is when the rights in question are constantly trampled over by the fascist state of Israel. You're doing the old the card says moops.
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
That is just not true at all. Just look at court cases involving Arabs in Israel. I know that you have done absolutely zero research on the subject and won't respond to anything anyone says.
you are delusional
Interfaith marriage isn't even allowed!
It's literally apartheid. Imagine if the US still had Jim Crow with all the anti-miscegenation laws. On paper, the races are separate but equal, but in practice the fact that people in a minority group can't marry into the majority group keeps wealth segregated (and reproduces the hierarchical racist structure). The same is true in Israel, obviously, the Palestinians are majority non-Jewish and are forbidden from marrying into Jewish families (who, by the nature of colonialism, hold the vast majority of wealth and power in Israel) unless they give up their religion. That's apartheid.
I mean, Palestinian Christians obviously are? The ban on inter-faith marriage isn't the only part of apartheid (and obviously Jewish - Non-Jewish is not the same line as Settler - Indigenous, I'm saying the apartheid is the latter, while the interfaith marriage ban only enforces the former) but it's a pretty obvious example of how Israel is constructed to maintain a strict social division.
What the hell are you talking about? There was a significant amount of Christian Palestinians before the state of Israel existed, 7.79% of the total population in 1944^[https://www.cjpme.org/fs_007]. Christian communities have existed in Palestine as long as Christianity has existed. I don't know where I would find information about how many Christians in Occupied Palestine right now are of Palestinian descent, and how many are from elsewhere, but it's obviously true that a Christian Palestinian faces the same discrimination from the state of Israel as a Muslim Palestinian.
That's not all of Palestine.
Are you an LLM or something? You made the claim that Israeli Christians aren't victims of apartheid, then I said that they definitely are if they are Palestinians, and now it seems that you're trying to say you are only Palestinian if you live within Gaza or the West Bank. I'm saying that it's Palestine from the river Jordan to the Mediterranean, and that Palestinians living in that geographic area are oppressed by the Israeli apartheid state the same way regardless of their religion, the way that Israel forbids people from marrying outside of their faith serves to reinforce the division at the core of a settler-colonial regime.
Palestine is a region, and when I say Palestinians I mean the people indigenous to that region, including those that stayed within the areas that are now under occupation by the state of Israel. That's why it's tricky to figure out which Christian Israelis are also Palestinians, and which ones moved into Occupied Palestine after the Nakba (or are descended from settlers). Obviously, trying to draw a hard line between "indigenous" and "settler" gets difficult (despite the Zionists' best efforts to segregate Israeli society as much as possible) after several generations.
Push a hasbarist into a corner and the historical revisionism starts to come out. Indigineity is not decided by who lived where in the beginning of time, it's decided by the dynamic between colonizer and the colonized. The Aztec empire colonized land that was later occupied by Spanish settlers; in the period of the Spanish conquest of the Americas, the Aztecs and their descendants were considered indigenous because they were the ones being colonized. The Arab conquests and their contradictions are clearly not the contradictions of the Levant today, so we need to update our lens and see reality for what it is: there are indigenous people who were living peacefully in Palestine until 1948 (although Zionist settlers had started coming in during the British mandate, prior to the Nakba), then following a period of brutal ethnic cleansing (with its latest round in Gaza) the indigenous people of Palestine have been reduced to being second class citizens in a settler colony.
Prove it.
lmao
Sir, do you have any idea how BASED you were posting?
Paris vaut bien une messe.