NYC First Lady Tied To Israel-Abolish Push

Zohran Mamdani speaking to reporters on a city sidewalk — Photo: Ron Adar / Shutterstock

New York City’s first lady served as a host at a luxury retreat whose organizers urged the abolition of Israel, while her husband publicly touts fighting antisemitism.

Story Snapshot

Rama Duwaji joined The Women Sanctuary retreats as “artist-in-residence” and host.
Retreat organizers posted calls to abolish Israel and praised “cleansing” the land.
Events took place in Spain, Corsica, and Portugal in 2026, drawing public scrutiny.
The link raises a classic question: association versus endorsement under U.S. norms.

Retreat roles, dates, and the money trail

Reports say Rama Duwaji, New York City’s first lady, served as the “artist-in-residence” and a host for women-only Islamic retreats run by The Women Sanctuary. She traveled for a July program in Mallorca, Spain, and later for a Corsica event that framed Mary as “a Palestinian woman giving birth under occupation”. Coverage also listed a Portugal calligraphy retreat for September. The Mallorca session cost about three thousand four hundred dollars per guest, indicating a high-end program.

These roles place Duwaji beyond a casual attendee. Hosting signals buy-in to the program’s themes and community. That matters when the organizer’s public messages include hot-button political claims. People can draw their own line, but common sense says hosting carries weight. Voters judge what that weight means about values and priorities, especially when a public official’s household stands amid charged debates about antisemitism, free speech, and civic leadership.

What the organizer said about Israel

Posts attributed to The Women Sanctuary’s account urged the destruction or abolition of Israel and referenced “cleansing” the land of “oppressors,” language critics called eliminationist toward the Jewish state. Another outlet highlighted the organizer’s celebratory tone toward violence tied to the conflict. These are not soft phrases or abstract theology. They read as direct political calls. When an organizer speaks in those terms, any host or partner can expect scrutiny in a city with a large Jewish population and a long memory.

Supporters may argue that a retreat’s spiritual art programs can be separated from the organizer’s political posts. That case grows weaker when the same brand platform mixes devotional themes with explicit calls to erase a nation. American conservative values draw a clean line here: condemn bigotry, reject collective punishment, and do not flirt with rhetoric that erases a people’s homeland. If you demand respect for one group’s dignity, you must defend the same for Jews.

Association versus endorsement: the line the law draws, the line voters draw

United States doctrine warns against guilt by association. The Supreme Court has said association alone should not assign blame in our system. Defamation standards also set a high bar for public figures, who must prove actual malice to win a libel claim. That rule exists to protect open debate and harsh criticism of officials and their circles. Law sets that shield. Voters, however, apply a different test: judgment. They ask why a leader’s spouse would attach her name and labor to a group that pushes such messages.

That voter test is simple. If you claim to fight antisemitism, you do not partner with voices that cheer erasing Israel. You do not normalize language about “cleansing” a land of “oppressors,” which easily maps onto real people in real neighborhoods. City leaders can argue nuance. Households can claim separate lanes. But the standard for public trust is higher than legal liability. The clearer the break with that rhetoric, the stronger the claim to moral seriousness.