Hundreds of rabbis accuse Mamdani of fueling antisemitism over 'monsters' comment
More than 700 rabbis representing every major Jewish denomination across the United States are calling on New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani to publicly apologize for remarks he made about the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC.
In an open letter released Friday afternoon, the Jewish clergy condemn the mayor's statement in which he described members of the pro-Israel lobby as "monsters" and claimed they were spending "millions in dark money" to preserve their power and sow division. The rabbis note that Mamdani has refused to retract his remarks despite mounting criticism and are demanding that he clarify his position.
The letter's release coincides with a new poll by the Jewish Majority organization highlighting deep concern within the community. According to the survey, 82% of Jewish voters in New York are concerned about rising antisemitism, with most respondents linking it to the normalization of anti-Zionism. The poll also found that a majority believe Mamdani's refusal to condemn calls to "globalize the intifada" has emboldened pro-Hamas demonstrators.
(snip)
The letter was prompted by a speech Mamdani delivered last week, when he used celebrations marking the New York Knicks' championship to launch what the rabbis described as an unprecedented attack on AIPAC and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In a speech at a rally backing progressive candidates in Brooklyn ahead of the Democratic primaries, Mamdani accused AIPAC of pouring “millions of dark-money dollars” into efforts to turn the public against itself. He claimed the lobby feared democracy and “the end of the genocide and Netanyahu’s wars.”
The letter's authors emphasize that the unusually broad coalition of rabbis, who often disagree on political issues, united over what they see as the dangerous implications of Mamdani's remarks. They note that his comments came just days after five people were charged with plotting to kill government officials supported by AIPAC, and on the same day that a man in Florida was indicted for allegedly planning a mass shooting at the organization's offices.
https://www.ynetnews.com/article/s100efe2fzx
= new reply since forum marked as read
And yet I got the response - not the person making the comments.
I feel as though calling me a racist and purveyor of anti-semitic tropes based on wild and fact-free conclusions on your part is... how shall I put it? I can't find the words, at least not ones I can say.
"More AIPAC means more war." 
Rabbis across the Country are worried about spreading more Anti-Semitism.
Anti-Zionist stickers given to kids 'an innocent mistake,' Michigan mom says
snip***
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100221330562
☮️💙
🌻🕯️🕊️
AIPAC hysteria -- 
From you, verbatim.
"Yes, Palestinians have a right to self determination - murdering innocent people, just as it's wrong for any other nation to do, it is wrong for them as well. Blowing up innocent people - children, people in restaurants, etc. is not the way got about that - not for them, not for the US, not for Russia - or anyone. Teaching babies to hate is just wrong - for anyone! Raping and torturing women and burning people, including young children alive is not the way to garner any support for their cause. Do you think this is reasonable? Do you excuse it?"
I sent the same thing to you but just exchanged "Palestinians" with "Israelis" and all of a sudden
"Is it your right to insist Israel change it's immigration policies according you your personal beliefs?" Absofuckinglutely.
"Why have no Palestinians migrated to Egypt or Jordan?" They have.
"Are you against their immigration policies?" Absofuckinglutely. I'm against ours and I cant be against theirs?
"Are you justifying the the hate and murder of Jews in the area? Are you saying that it's understandable that some Palestinian children's greatest hope is to kill Jews? (Leave out the West Bank bezerkers - they're just as bad) Do you not think that someone blowing themselves up in the hope of killing citizens of a country is not an act of war?"
"Do you think that the perpetrators of the atrocities of October 7 were justified in their actions?"
Of course not.
I never asked you about WWII
You must be part Jewish as you answered my question with questions. 
I asked about your feelings about these issues. I didn't accuse you of anything.
rather than banding together to attack and start a war (which they lost) against Israel, none of this would be happening now?
Would Egypt have "taken by force the fertile lands of Gaza" had they not been among the countries that started the 1948 war against Israel? Would a Gaza Envelope exist absent the wars of aggression against Israel started (and lost) by Arab coalitions, including the 1967 war?
Is the original sin the refusal of Palestinians to accept the UN designated national homeland, the 1948 war against Israel started by the Arab coalition shortly thereafter, or Egypt's appropriation and military control of Gaza post 1948?
How different the world would be if only Arab nations had helped Palestinians to finally establish a nation in 1947-48 rather than beginning this series of endless wars in an effort to expel Jews from their newly established nation in their ancient ancestral homeland.
A coalition of Arab states refused the share allotted to the those who had lived under British military rule in the part of the former Ottoman Empire known as the Palestinian Mandate, and started a war of aggression (which they lost) instead.
Under the 1949 Armistice Agreement mediated by the UN, Israel gained territory and the rest of what was supposed to be a homeland for the Arab residents of the former Palestinian Mandate was divvied up between Egypt and the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan, now known as Jordon.
Framing this as
when the truth is that the partition plan was a UN Resolution passed by the General Assembly by a vote of 33 to 13 is troubling at its very best.
from a UN committee's database and a single paragraph from a long article that
you link to that continues directly:
At the conclusion of Israel’s War of Independence and for decades afterward, the partition resolution served as a benchmark in international affairs when the Palestinian issue or Israel’s legitimacy was raised.
The resolution was repeatedly presented as evidence of Israel’s international legitimacy, as support for an Arab state in Palestine, and as proof that had the Arab states not rejected partition in 1947, an Arab state in Palestine would have been created, and a Palestinian Arab refugee problem not created.
In October 2011, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said that “it was an Arab mistake as a whole” to reject the partition plan. The partition plan was also used as a model of how Jerusalem as a city and its holy places should be treated, namely governed through some international administration. That reality never materialized. Jerusalem, divided as a consequence of the 1948-49 war, was not reunited as one municipality until after the June 1967 war, and no international administration was applied to its governance.
Thanks, but I've already seen it.
Let me know if you find a snippet that supports the claim that this all started when Jewish people randomly decided to build a country somewhere. 
The recommendation became UN Resolution 181 which the General Assembly by a vote of 33 to 13. The Arab States lost the vote.
Sorry, but "look at this single decontextualized paragraph from a single chapter of a 466 page book" is just not gong to cut it, even if the 466 page book was published by the Cambridge University Press.
The imposition of the partition of Palestine against the expressed wishes of the majority of its population can in no way be considered as respect for, or compliance with, and of the principles of the Charter mentioned above.
Moreover, partition involves the alienation of territory and the destruction of the integrity of the state of Palestine, The United Nations can not make a disposition or alienation of territory. Nor can it deprive the majority of the people of Palestine of their territory and transfer it to the exclusive use of a minority in the country.
The United Nations organization has no power to create a new state. Such a decision can only be take by the free will of the people of the territories in question.
Bottom of page 18 and top of 19. https://unispal.un.org/pdfs/AAC1432.pdf
Do you need more cause I got a lot more.
for the claim that the UN supported those resolutions.
The UN rejected the proposed plan that you linked to in favor of the partition plan that was passed by the UN General Assembly as Resolution 181.
Is the claim now that the (rejected) proposed resolution that you linked to is not the (rejected) proposed resolution?
Someone should inform the UN archivist.
It recommended the establishment of an independent, unitary, democratic state in Palestine instead of partition.The Ad Hoc Committee rejected this unitary state/anti-partition proposal and instead endorsed Sub-Committee 1's plan to partition Palestine . Ultimately, the General Assembly adopted the partition plan on November 29, 1947, as Resolution 181 (II) , making the proposal in document A/AC.14/32 a minority/defeated alternative.
https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-214169/
https://unispal.un.org/pdfs/AAC1432.pdf
==================================
Your link goes to a rejected proposal, and your screenshot snippet is a decontextualized piece of that rejected proposal.
Subcommittee 2 was largely made up of Arab and Islamic nations (with the exception of Colombia whose representative resigned from the committee), and its proposal was a land grab of the entire British Mandate. It is little wonder that the UN rejected it.
https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-214188/
as if the UN General Assembly didn't vote on the issue and adopt the partition plan by a greater than two thirds majority?
--------------------------------------
Thank you for the concession that there was no requirement for the either the Committee or the referring party (Great Britain) to bring the matter to "said Security Council" rather than to the full Assembly. Underlining the word "may" at every opportunity certainly obviates any insistence that requirements were involved.
It was Great Britain that bypassed the Security Council (as was their right) and referred the question regarding the future of the British Mandate for consideration by the entire Assembly. One of the reasons for doing so was because there was no "active threat to or breach of international peace" in the region at the time
https://www.un.org/unispal/history2/origins-and-evolution-of-the-palestine-problem/part-ii-1947-1977/
Subsequent to Great Britain putting the issue of the dissolution of the British Mandate before the entire body of the UN, a UN committee was formed to examine the question and make recommendations. The Committee notably rejected the recommendation put forth by Subcommittee 2 (a unitary country administered solely by Arabs) and adopted the plan recommended by Subcommittee 1, the partition plan that became Resolution 181.
The UN General Assembly voted on the recommendation, and while multiple "people" (did you mean countries and/or kingdoms?) voted against Resolution 181, Resolution 181 passed by a greater than two-thirds majority of the voting parties of the General Assembly and was adopted.
-----------------------------------------
Did you neglect to include Article 12 in your snippet because it outlines the role and functions of "said Security Council" which pretty much disproves the argument that there was any requirement to consult "said Security Council" before referring the question to the full Assembly? Articles 10, 11, ... 13, 14 of the UN Charter certainly is an odd sequence with that noticeable gap.
partition, that the General Assembly accepted that recommendation by a greater than two thirds majority of the voting members, and that the Jewish Agency finally proceeded with implementation despite the fact that the Arab Higher Committee was stamping its feet and holding its breath because the outcome of the vote was not to its liking.
Your reading of the word "unilaterally" in this instance is incorrect. The UN ratified the partition plan and representatives of the Jewish Agency accepted the plan. "Unilaterally" simply means that the Jewish Agency acted to implement the plan without Arab "permission" (which it didn't need) and despite the fact that Arabs refused to honor the General Assemly's decision.
When the Arab Higher Committee refused to go forward with the partition plan because their recommendation (the plan of Subcommittee 2) was rejected, the Jewish Agency began to implement the plan while the Arab Higher Committee sad stubornly on the sidelines.
What did you expect, for the Jewish Agency to wait until Hitler's buddy the Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini gave them permission (which they didn't need) to proceed?
-------------------------------------------------
Fun fact: The term "Palestinian" as a descriptor of a nationality or a single ethnicity does not appear in any of the relevant UN documents.
The terms used by the UN were Jewish Population of Palestine and Arab Population of Palestine. "Jew" and "Arab" were used as the descriptors for national groups, and if the UN found it necessary to reference the non-Jewish demographic in the region, it used the term "Palestinian Arabs" or "the Arab population in Palestine".
The terms Zionist and Palestinian Arab were used as well in Resolution 181 when the UN outlined the citizenship plan for the two independent states.
That's not what the resolution says. and who is the "we" that you expect to invade Israel?
but they don't work on me.
and the Security Council was not "deciding what to do" because it was not tasked with implantation of the plan. The entity explicitly put in charge of executing the partition was the United Nations Palestine Commission. The Arab Higher Commission refused to meet with the United Nations Palestine Commission and did not recognized its authority.
--------------------------------------
What makes you think that the British Mandate was "Arab land"? It was a military zone administered by the British post WWI. Before that it "belonged" to the Ottoman Turks.
The terms "The Arab State" and "The Jewish State" are used in the Resolution. tThe text also references "Palestinian citizens" (referring to anyone holding British Mandate citizenship, regardless of ethnicity). The terms "Arabs and Jews" were also used to describe the two distinct communities within the British Mandate. The UN also used the terms Palestinian Arabs and Palestinian Jews when they needed to clarify demographic distinctions.
==================================
Much of what I have read here over the past few days is rife with inaccuracies, misinterpretations, and odd claims (like the assertion that a UN resolution is a "law" which, when "broken", gives countries a right to invade).
I recommend that anyone seeking to understand this complex situation should stop reading snippets posted on twitter or reddit and start reading books, white papers, and complete documents.
If you have any further questions, reading complete texts will help. Anyone unwilling to read deeply and fully should sea below.
most notably in 1947, and most recently in 2000.
The most notable rejection was of the 1947 UN Partition Plan (Resolution 181), which sought to divide the territory into independent Arab and Jewish states, with Jerusalem under international administration.
snip================
The rejection of the 1947 plan ultimately led to the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. Following the conflict, the territory of the former mandate was divided, with the newly established State of Israel occupying a portion, while the West Bank and Gaza Strip came under Jordanian and Egyptian control, respectively.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_Palestine
--------------------------------------
See also:
https://abcnews.com/International/story?id=81751&page=1
In December 2000, as his presidency neared its end, Bill Clinton presented bridging proposals known as the Clinton Parameters, which outlined a two-state solution featuring an independent Palestinian nation. The plan was met with rejection by Palestinian leadership .
I don't consider this a rabbit hole, expulsions weren't one-sided. Tens of thousands of Palestinians were expelled from what is now Israel, but some don't seem to care because it doesn't suit their narrative. It would have been far less messy if people had been allowed to stay where their homes were and on the land they were connected to.
The founders of Israel? I'm assuming yr talking about Ben-Gurion? He was a realist and worked purely from a political stance because Zionism was and still is a political ideology. While he wasn't particularly religious, he did need to get the religious types onside when Israel was created. He had to make some concessions to Orthodox Jews, which is why things like marriage, divorce etc are controlled by religious law and not civil law. Don't quote me on that last bit, as it's been a long time since I read about it. Which means while the founders weren't particularly religious, they catered to the Orthodox and were very into expanding territory, which is why Israel's borders weren't defined when the state was created.
Oh, no. I just realised I used the term Zionism! I got chided just recently from someone in another thread who informed me that studying Israel and Zionism when I was at uni was proof that there's a disproportionate fixation with Zionism, AND YOU KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS!!!! Unfortunately they never returned to answer my question about how much discussion of Israel is acceptable, so I'm still not clear on what the red line in the sand is, not that I really give a shit...
Yes, I agree with you, Many antisemitic people use "Zionism" as an excuse, though I find the attempts to label all discussion of Zionism as antisemitic is merely an attempt to silence criticism of Israel. And let's be real. I've seen the antisemitic ones on FB and it's not hard to miss. I encountered someone who didn't seem capable of saying 'Israel'. He'd call it the 'Zionist entity' or 'Zionist regime'. The way he said it made it very clear there was something boiling away underneath that was really ugly. Along the same lines, blaming Zionists for all the ills in the world is another giveaway, as well as comparing Israel to Nazi Germany.
What's not accurate is what some in this thread have a habit of doing, which is labelling any and all mentions of Zionism and AIPAC and dog knows how many other keywords as being antisemitic. My rule of thumb is that people who aren't Jewish are Zionists, and AIPAC isn't a Jewish organisation. Insisting on conflating them with Jews is just playing into antisemites hands. Have you noticed some who do this have no qualms about attacking J-Street or Jewish Voice for Peace? Because the issue isn't whether an organisation is Jewish, it's about whether the organisation 110% falls in line and defends everything Israel does.
And because I don't think there's much going on in this thread, I'll just finish up by pointing out that AIPAC is a horrible, hardline group, and anyone who claims to support Israel should get behind J-Street instead. And also, Zohran Mandami is a superhero and I suspect some of the attacks on him come from him not only being a socialist, but a Muslim one
https://jstreet.org/
The fact that the 150,000 Arabs who remained within Israel's armistice lines in 1949 have now grown to a demographic of 2,000,000+ Arab/Palestinian Citizens of Israel is counter to any claim of ethnic cleansing by Israel.
And it would be pretty insulting for anyone to diminish that population by dismissively referring to their number as "a few" as if they do not really count at all.
I have to admit that out of the dozens of hurtful accusations thrown at me since October 2023, this one affected me the most. You have articulated the main reason why.
When someone said "your Jew-hate is showing, dear" well over a year ago, I rolled my eyes because it was the clearest yet demonstration of that poster's assumptions about me. To my amazement, the post was quickly gone and so was the poster, a long-time DUer.
But is seems accusing me of being a racist and the Nazi at the dinnertable etc passes for acceptable debate for nearly 2 dozen people here that I will not engage with further - on any issue. Or maybe not, that would amount to silencing of my voice - not that that was the intention here, right? So maybe I won't consent to being silenced.
And you are right, it's never the content examined but the assumption of bad motives and bad character. Because, you know, anti-racist, anti-homophobe, etc human rights advocate "leftists" have one bad character trait totally out of sync with who they are: anti-semitism and racism toward Jews. Yup.
I hope you get to write your essay on Zionism. Don't hold your breath on a response to your question.
Thank you again, from the bottom of my heart.
Boy if they had said that to me I would have given them the what for.
Negative views of Israel, Netanyahu continue to rise among Americans – especially young people
They supported 109 treasonous sitting RW Rethug election denialists.
RW-billionaire-funded AIPAC is not a Dem ally on balance. As stated above, in 2022 they endorsed 109 Republicans who refused to certify Biden's election (Including the christofash Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, Gym 'the paedo enabler' Jordan, ultra MAGAette cheerleader Elise Stefanik, the worm of worms Kevin McCarthy, the crazed gunhumper Greg Steube, Ronny 'Trump's drunk Dr Feelgood' Jackson, Joe 'you lie!' Wilson, John 'I am a racist, climate change denying MAGAt, but look!, Henry Cuellar campaigns and fundraises for me so it's all good' Carter, Troy 'make shit up about being threatened, get caught, and then distract by trying to get Biden 25th Amendment'ed' Nehls, etc etc). AIPAC values fealty to a foreign power more than the health of American democracy as shown by their support for those RW treasonous MAGAts simply because the MAGAts are also pro-Israel hawks.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/oct/18/pro-israel-lobby-group-aipac-midterms-election-deniers-and-extremist-republicans
The US’s largest pro-Israel lobby group is backing dozens of racists, homophobes and election deniers running for Congress next month because they have pledged to defend Israel against stiffening criticism of its oppression of the Palestinians. The powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac) has justified endorsing Republicans with extremist views, including members of Congress with ties to white supremacist groups and representatives who attempted to block Joe Biden’s election victory, on the grounds that the singular issue of support for Israel trumps other considerations.
But Aipac’s support for rightwing politicians has privately embarrassed some Democrats also endorsed by the powerful group and drawn accusations from more moderate pro-Israel organisations that it is attempting to stifle legitimate criticism of hardline Israeli policies. Logan Bayroff, a spokesman for J Street, a group campaigning for Washington to take a stronger stand to end the occupation of Palestinian territories, accused Aipac of attempting to impose a narrow definition of what it is to be pro-Israel amid shifting views in Democratic ranks.
“Their actions have made clear that they view pro-Israel, pro-peace progressive Democrats as threats – and Trumpist Republicans as allies. That worldview could not be more out of touch with the vast majority of American Jews,” he said. “Aipac may hope to silence and intimidate political leaders who believe that settlement expansion, endless conflict and permanent occupation are harmful to Israel, the Palestinian people and US interests. Ultimately, however, these common-sense views are too popular, widespread and important to be suppressed, and will continue to gain strength within American politics and among the American Jewish community.”
Aipac’s backing of extreme rightwing Republicans follows its $27m advertising campaign during the Democratic primaries to defeat candidates who spoke up for Palestinian rights, mostly with attacks over issues that had nothing to do with Israel. The campaign is part of push by more hawkish pro-Israel groups to shore up support in Congress in the face of rising advocacy for the Palestinian cause within the Democratic party and erosion of approval for Israeli actions among American Jews, particularly younger people.
snip
https://jstreet.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/AIPAC-Endorsee-List-042022.pdf
AIPAC endorsees that voted against certifying the 2020 presidential election results
Robert Aderholt (AL-04)
Jerry Carl (AL-01)
Barry Moore (AL-02)
Gary Palmer (AL-06)
Mike Rogers (AL-03)
Andy Biggs (AZ-05)
Debbie Lesko (AZ-08)
David Schweikert (AZ-01)
Rick Crawford (AK-01)
Ken Calvert (CA-41)
Mike Garcia (CA-27)
Darrell Issa (CA-48)
Doug LaMalfa (CA-01)
Kevin McCarthy (CA-20)
Jay Obernolte (CA-23)
Doug Lamborn (CO-05)
Kat Cammack (FL-03)
Mario Diaz-Balart (FL-25)
Byron Donalds (FL-19)
Neal Dunn (FL-02)
Scott Franklin (FL-15)
Carlos Gimenez (FL-26)
Brian Mast (FL-18)
Bill Posey (FL-08)
John Rutherford (FL-04)
Greg Steube (FL-17)
Daniel Webster (FL-11)
Rick Allen (GA-12)
Buddy Carter (GA-01)
Ross Fulcher (ID-01)
Mike Bost (IL-12)
Jim Baird (IN-04)
Jim Banks (IN-03)
Greg Pence (IN-06)
Ron Estes (KS-04)
Jake LaTurner (KS-02)
Tracey Mann (KS-01)
Hal Rogers (KY-05)
John Kennedy (LA-Sen)
Garret Graves (LA-06)
Clay Higgins (LA-03)
Mike Johnson (LA-04)
Steve Scalise (LA-01)
Andy Harris (MD-01)
Jack Bergman (MI-01)
Lisa McClain (MI-09)
Tim Walberg (MI-05)
Michelle Fischbach (MN-07)
Michael Guest (MS-03)
Trent Kelly (MS-01)
Steven Palazzo (MS-04)
Sam Graves (MO-06)
Blaine Luetkemeyer (MO-03)
Jason Smith (MO-08)
Matt Rosendale (MT-02)
Adrian Smith (NE-03)
Jeff Van Drew (NJ-02)
Yvette Herrell (NM-02)
Chris Jacobs (NY-24)
Nicole Malliotakis (NY-11)
Elise Stefanik (NY-21)
Dan Bishop (NC-08)
Virginia Foxx (NC-05)
Richard Hudson (NC-09)
Greg Murphy (NC-03)
David Rouzer (NC-07)
Steve Chabot (OH-01)
Bill Johnson (OH-06)
Jim Jordan (OH-04)
Stephanie Bice (OK-05)
Tom Cole (OK-04)
Kevin Hern (OK-01)
Mike Kelly (PA-16)
Dan Meuser (PA-09)
Scott Perry (PA-10)
Guy Reschenthaler (PA-14)
Lloyd Smucker (PA-11)
G.T. Thompson (PA-15)
Jeff Duncan (SC-03)
Ralph Norman (SC-05)
Tom Rice (SC-07)
William Timmons (SC-04)
Joe Wilson (SC-02)
Tim Burchett (TN-02)
Scott DesJarlais (TN-04)
Chuck Fleischmann (TN-03)
Mark Green (TN-07)
Diana Harshbarger (TN-01)
David Kustoff (TN-08)
John Rose (TN-06)
Jodey Arrington (TX-19)
Brian Babin (TX-36)
Michael Burgess (TX-26)
John Carter (TX-31)
Michael Cloud (TX-27)
Lance Gooden (TX-05)
Ronny Jackson (TX-13)
Troy Nehls (TX-22)
August Pfluger (TX-11)
Pete Sessions (TX-17)
Beth Van Duyne (TX-24)
Randy Weber (TX-14)
Roger Williams (TX-25)
Chris Stewart (UT-02)
Ben Cline (VA-06)
Morgan Griffith (VA-09)
Rob Wittman (VA-01)
Scott Fitzgerald (WI-05)
Carol Miller (WV-01)
are somewhat problematic, the decision whether or not to allow a post to remain or to block the poster resides with the host(s) of the forum. Yes, certainly posts can be alerted and juried as well, but in some of the smaller forums (not suggesting I/P specifically as I do think the remaining host tries very hard to be fair), but yes, some single issue forums do block those posters whose single reply or OP is considered in opposition to the main members of the forum.
That is why this probably needs to remain in GD...
The man is a grade A fucking psychopath who's committing genocide in broad daylight so a handful of billionaire fuckheads can build some kind of weird sci fi utopia. 
