A mayor’s job is local – someone should tell the moderators…

By: Rivy Mosegi, Opinion Editor

On June 4, the democratic mayoral primary debate was held with candidates including former NYC governor Andrew Cuomo, Democratic Socialist Zohran Mamdani, NYC council speaker Adrienne Adams and former hedge fund manager Whitney Tilson. Many questions were raised but amongst these questions, a certain question asked to the candidates has since gone viral – where would each candidate go on their first foreign trip as mayor?

Though Cuomo, Adams and Tilson all said that their first visit would be to Israel, Mamdani shifted focus back to New York City: “I would stay in New York City. My plans are to address New Yorkers across the five boroughs and focus on that.” The interviewer pressed Mamdani, asking if he were elected whether he would go to Israel, and he again shifted the focus back to the city, asserting his commitment to advocating for Jewish New Yorkers. The interviewer then demanded an answer asking, “Just yes or no, do you believe in a Jewish state of Israel?” to which Mamdani responded, “I believe Israel has the right to exist.”

The interviewer and several other candidates immediately bombarded Mamdani for not clearly stating whether he would visit Israel. My biggest question is: why would a mayor of New York City leave the country for anything other than a vacation? I would like to remind everyone that this question was asked to mayoral candidates for New York City – a city. It is currently dealing with nearly every issue plausible: affordability and housing, safety, quality of life and city services, the environment and the workforce – yet mayoral candidates are asked about foreign visits? With regard to some of the candidates’ responses saying they would visit Israel, let me also add that this is the same country that is actively committing a genocide in Gaza, the same country that is the highest recipient of foreign aid, estimated at $3.3 billion every year? I don’t think enough New Yorkers are enraged at the fact that the U.S. has been sending billions of dollars a year, fully funding Israel since 1946. Essentially, America is funding the genocide that Israel is committing in Gaza, which is concerning to say the least.

Some people defend the moderator’s question by saying, “Well, New York has one of the largest Jewish populations in the world – of course the candidates should be asked about Israel.” But that logic makes no sense when applied anywhere else. Since Miami has a large Cuban population, should every mayor promise to visit Cuba? Of course not. Representing a community does not necessitate symbolic diplomatic visits to their ancestral homeland: it means addressing their needs here, in the city they actually live in. Communities want safer neighborhoods, better schools, affordable housing and functioning transit – not performative foreign trips that don’t directly improve New Yorkers’ daily lives. So even if New York has a large Jewish population, that fact alone does not justify turning a municipal debate into a foreign policy loyalty test for a job that has no role in foreign policy.

If a candidate said their first “foreign” trip would be to fix the subway, that would be much more justifiable than a trip to another country. Why would a mayor prioritize a diplomatic visit that has no impact on governing the city? No one demanded the candidates justify these foreign trips in terms of improving New Yorkers’ daily lives. Instead, the question was framed as if not pledging to visit Israel was the real red flag – and that should concern people.

The larger issue – the one almost nobody seems angry enough about – is that Americans are expected to accept unquestioningly that our tax dollars fund this international genocide while at home people are sleeping on subway grates to stay warm. We have families who cannot afford groceries, elders who cannot afford medication and students drowning in debt before they even enter the workforce. Every year, billions of dollars in U.S. support flow to the Israeli military, yet somehow the political establishment still treats unconditional support for Israel as a baseline expectation, even at a debate for the leadership of a single city.  

For many New Yorkers, this may have been the first time they had seen a politician refuse to participate in a foreign policy loyalty ritual and instead bring the conversation back to the actual people he was hoping to represent. In a political landscape where candidates constantly signal to donors, lobbyists and ideological gatekeepers, Mamdani’s answer cut through the noise. It showed a level of clarity and courage that people are simply not used to seeing. And ultimately, this was the pivotal point at which Mamdani won the election – New Yorkers saw a candidate who put New York first.