By Matt Underwood NYC Mayor Adams signs executive order banning divestments from Israel, and it’s certainly stirring up a reaction. It seems like a lot of folks are raising eyebrows at this move, and for good reason. The core of the concern appears to be a First Amendment issue. Many people feel this is a blatant attempt to stifle free speech by essentially punishing those who choose to express their political or economic views by divesting from Israel. The use of executive power in this way, to police such expression, is viewed by many as a dangerous overreach.
The question of enforceability is also being loudly asked. The outgoing mayor of a US city attempting to enforce legal penalties for not engaging in commerce with a foreign nation strikes many as a bizarre and perhaps even unconstitutional proposition. The skepticism is palpable. The overall feeling appears to be that this is a case of a politician, in this case Eric Adams, wielding power in a way that’s perhaps more about political posturing and grandstanding than practical governance. The whole situation has people calling it “corrupt clown shit,” and “performative behavior” that adds nothing of substance.
The timing of this executive order is also raising questions. With a new mayor, Mamdani, set to take office, the general expectation is that this order will be overturned almost immediately. This leads to the perception that the move is more about setting a political stage than implementing lasting policy. There’s a sentiment that Adams might be doing this to somehow “sabotage” Mamdani, possibly motivated by political pressure or other factors. The speculation is that the outgoing mayor might be taking actions to serve political interests from groups who feel a strong affinity towards Israel, to the detriment of NYC residents.
The issue of the next mayor’s ability to simply undo the order is being discussed. The fact that any incoming mayor can simply tear up the order, potentially, is making it seem pointless. It’s perceived as a waste of time and energy, a distraction from addressing the core issues facing New York City. The consensus is that it’s a symbolic gesture at best.
There’s also a strong undercurrent of disbelief in the level of control this suggests. The idea of a government dictating economic relationships with foreign countries is raising serious concerns about free market principles and individual autonomy. This intervention in economic decisions is what many see as “anti-free market socialism”. The order seems to be promoting some sort of a loyalty oath to a foreign country.
Moreover, the order’s implications and potential interpretation as an infringement on freedom of speech are widely debated. Critics feel that this order seeks to punish those who dissent from the policies of a foreign government. The discussion around this order extends to broader concerns. People are asking why there should be a loyalty oath to a foreign country to even contract with the government.
The political context surrounding this executive order is getting a lot of attention. The fact that the incoming mayor is a Muslim, and the order could be seen as an attempt to undermine him from the beginning. Many suspect that the former mayor had other, unstated motives, and that this could be a political ploy. It’s the consensus that this action will be undone immediately.
Additionally, Adams’ visit to Israel, during which he stated he “served them as mayor,” is seen as a sign of his priorities. Some see it as a lack of focus on the city itself. Many feel this executive order should be overturned, and that Adams’ actions are a sign of his priorities being elsewhere.
Finally, the underlying issue of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement is being indirectly debated. Those who support the BDS movement advocate for the use of economic pressure to influence Israeli policies towards Palestinians. The executive order is seen by many as a direct challenge to this movement and a signal of support for Israel. The discussion acknowledges the complexities of the topic, and recognizes that there are multiple viewpoints to take into account. It seems like most people would prefer that the new mayor focuses on local matters.