Los Angeles City Hall Is Not The Hague

Los Angeles needs change. Anyone who has watched housing costs climb, struggled to navigate city services or wondered whether our leaders are prepared for the next emergency understands that. But change deserves scrutiny. At the September 29 mayoral forum at the Skirball Cultural Center, Nithya Raman gave Angelenos reason to ask what her version of change would mean for the city.

The most revealing moment came when Raman was asked to define genocide, a word she has used to describe Israel’s actions in Gaza. She responded that she was “not an expert on those issues” and pointed to scholars who have used the term. She offered a justification for repeating the accusation, rather than a definition of the accusation itself.

That distinction matters. Elected officials routinely consult experts. They should. But once a candidate adopts a conclusion as grave as genocide, she assumes responsibility for explaining it. Citing someone else’s expertise does not relieve her of that obligation.

Genocide has a specific meaning under international law, involving prohibited acts committed with the intent to destroy a protected group, in whole or in part. Civilian suffering demands our attention and compassion. Establishing genocide also requires addressing that intent. A candidate invoking the term should be able to explain the standard and why she believes it applies.

Voters were entitled to an answer. A mayor must weigh evidence, explain consequential judgments and take responsibility for the language she brings into public life. This exchange raised questions about how Raman would exercise that responsibility.

There is something peculiar about a candidate for mayor confidently invoking genocide in a war thousands of miles away, then struggling to explain the term she has chosen. Los Angeles is electing someone to run a city. Voters deserve to know how that person will protect residents, manage public resources and evaluate policies affecting local livelihoods.

Events overseas can have serious consequences here. That is precisely why the distinction matters. A declaration about Gaza does not secure a synagogue entrance. Describing BDS as peaceful does not explain what a boycott would mean for local employers or city suppliers. The test of mayoral leadership is whether a candidate can translate convictions into responsible decisions for Los Angeles.

Her answer on Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions illustrated that problem. Raman described BDS as a “legitimate form of peaceful protest” and invoked the right to protest. But that leaves a central question unresolved: What does she believe about the movement’s objectives, and what role should it have in city policy?

Protecting someone’s right to advocate for a boycott is different from endorsing that boycott or adopting it as municipal policy. A mayor can defend free expression while opposing a proposal on its merits. Calling a movement peaceful tells voters something about its methods. It does not settle whether its goals are fair, constructive or consistent with the city’s responsibilities to its residents.

The economic stakes are tangible. California established a partnership with Israel in 2014 covering water conservation, cybersecurity, agricultural technology and other fields. Los Angeles has also organized a water conservation task force involving Israeli companies, LADWP and city representatives. These relationships concern problems Californians need solved.

A 2026 foreign investment report published by the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development lists 1,436 jobs at Israeli owned enterprises in Los Angeles County, with estimated annual wages of $185.9 million. Those are regional figures, not a tally of city contracts. But they demonstrate that economic ties with Israel reach into local livelihoods.

If support for BDS became city contracting restrictions, divestment or pressure to sever commercial relationships, the consequences could include lost opportunities, fewer suppliers and a less welcoming investment climate. The extent would depend on the policy. Protecting the right to protest does not answer how a mayor would weigh those costs. Every Angeleno has a stake in the answer.

Karen Bass offered a clearer position. She rejected the genocide characterization and indicated she would veto an Israel sanctions policy if it came before her. Voters can debate Bass’s record on housing, homelessness and disaster preparedness. They should. But on this question, the forum revealed a meaningful difference between the candidates.

Public safety requires equally concrete answers. Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 2664, the Safe Worship Zone Act, on September 25, four days before the forum. The law strengthens protections for people accessing houses of worship. I was in the room when Raman was asked about it. Her answer left me with the impression that she was unfamiliar with the legislation. Bass, by contrast, described working with her community safety group, interfaith council and LAPD on implementation. For someone seeking to lead Los Angeles, familiarity with a new law addressing the safety of its residents should be a basic expectation.

Raman’s political affiliations make the unanswered questions more consequential. DSA Los Angeles endorses her for mayor. Its own primary voter guide acknowledges that the chapter censured her in 2024 for accepting an endorsement from a pro Israel Democratic club. Its Palestine Solidarity Committee platform calls for stigmatizing official relationships with Israel.

Raman says she is independent, and her disagreements with DSA deserve acknowledgment. An endorsement does not make a candidate responsible for every position an organization takes. Still, voters can reasonably ask where her independence becomes a boundary. What demands from this organization would she reject, particularly when they concern Jewish communal relationships with Israel?

Her defense of appearing on Hasan Piker’s program belongs in that discussion. Reaching younger voters is a legitimate campaign goal. But reach carries responsibility. Candidates should explain how they challenge rhetoric they consider hateful when appearing before the audience that hears it. Jewish voters can reasonably judge both the appearance and the substance of that challenge.

Raman also said Jewish and Israeli American residents should feel safe, and that Angelenos should be able to express their views and be visibly Jewish. Those assurances matter. The question is how they would guide her decisions when the political movements supporting her treat ties to Israel as grounds for suspicion or censure.

For many Jews, Israel is part of family life, religious practice, historical memory and peoplehood. That connection can coexist with fierce criticism of an Israeli government and deep concern for Palestinian lives. Jewish identity contains disagreement. A mayor should make room for that complexity.

My concern is that Raman’s answers leave open the possibility of conditional belonging: Jews welcomed as neighbors, while an important part of many Jews’ identity is treated as something they should distance themselves from. That is my reading of the tension between her assurances and her political choices. She did not explicitly demand that Jews abandon their connection to Israel. But she has more work to do to explain how she would protect their full participation in civic life while resisting efforts to stigmatize that connection.

This matters across Los Angeles. Every resident has a stake in whether a candidate explains serious accusations, protects civic belonging and weighs the economic consequences of her political choices. These are habits of leadership, and the forum gave voters reason to question Raman’s judgment.

Disappointment with the available candidates is understandable. Sitting out, however, leaves the decision to others. Voting for Bass does not require excusing her failures or giving her a blank check. We can demand better performance while choosing the candidate whose positions on these questions better serve the city. For those reasons, I support Karen Bass and urge Angelenos to vote for her.