this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2025
-3 points (43.5% liked)
United States | News & Politics
8556 readers
228 users here now
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That’s not a call for Hamas to disarm,
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/lay-down-your-arms
He called for both sides to put down their weapons in a cease fire.
Mamdani says a lasting peace can only be achieved by Hamas laying down their weapons. Which means disarming. What he says about Israel does not matter, I do not care about "both sides" stories.
We all known Hamas should not lay down their weapons until Palestine is free and safe from oppression, that is obvious to anyone who watched Israel break every ceasefire.
A key Israeli propaganda line used to restart the genocide right now is using the excuse that Hamas still has not laid down their weapons. Mamdani is doing genocide propaganda right now. And Mamdani knows this very well because he used to avoid answering these types of question with an affirmation in the past. That is how he got famous.
Listen to the damn clip. It's perfectly clear what he is saying, despite your overly pedantic parsing of one exact phrase taken out of context.
Mamdani knows how to very carefully choose his words to avoid saying these types of things if he wanted to. He had perfectly demonstrated that in the past. This is not ignorance it is malice. He is compromising with Zionists.
You are 100% full of shit. There is absolutely zero ambiguity in what he said to anybody not trying hard to misunderstand it. You think he's trying to get back the Zionist vote by slipping in a subtle dog whistle? Yeah, that's plausible. You are full of shit, and you know you are full of shit, and you should feel bad.
You are trying your hardest to interpret it how you wish instead of what his words mean.
The ambiguity here is not a bug it is a feature. It is intentional but it is something Zohran avoided before. He supported Palestine clearly. Now he is a fence sitter and resistance denouncer.
Unless you drop everything after the first sentence, it's pretty clear to me what he is talking about. Has he ever once indicated that Hamas should disarm in anything less ambiguous? Is there any other position he has ever taken in relation to this or any other conflict that would indicate it is a position he would be likely to take? Has he accepted money from AIPAC or any other big money donor supporting the genocide of Palestine, or any other genocide? Is there any reason at all to make the worst possible presumption that can be made of what these words mean, when they are followed with the exact opposite explanation in the very next sentence? What the fuck is wrong with you that you think it's OK to be so dishonest?
Ehhhh