Nithya Raman Asked Jewish Los Angeles to Trust Her. Her Own Words Made That Harder.

ELECTION 2026 - Nithya Raman walked into the Skirball Cultural Center with an opportunity. She could speak directly to Jewish Angelenos who have serious questions about her views on Israel, antisemitism, the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, her affiliation with the Democratic Socialists of America and her decision to appear with streamer Hasan Piker.

Instead, Raman left Los Angeles with even more questions to answer.

At the September 29 Jewish community mayoral forum, Raman was asked about her use of one of the most consequential words in Jewish history: genocide. She did not retreat from it.

Raman acknowledged that “genocide” is a deeply painful term for Jewish people and carries enormous historical weight. But she defended applying it to Israel's conduct in Gaza, explaining that she relied on experts who have used the term and that she felt compelled to speak after seeing suffering and deaths in Gaza.

When moderator Alex Cohen pressed her on the issue, Raman acknowledged that she was “not an expert” on genocide and pointed instead to scholars and other experts who have used the term.

That answer deserves scrutiny. A candidate seeking to lead America's second-largest city is responsible for the words she chooses. When an elected official adopts an extraordinarily grave accusation, particularly one carrying such profound historical and legal meaning saying that other experts use the term does not end the discussion. It invites another question: What evidence and standard persuaded you personally to use it?

The audience's reaction demonstrated just how consequential the answer was. Reporting from the forum described groans and murmurs as Raman defended her position.

Then came BDS.

Asked about the movement advocating boycotts, divestment and sanctions against Israel, Raman called it a “legitimate form of peaceful protest,” while emphasizing that BDS is not part of her mayoral campaign platform and that she supports people's right to protest even when she disagrees with them. The response produced loud boos and one of the strongest negative reactions of the evening.

Raman was also challenged over her appearance with Hasan Piker, a prominent left-wing streamer and fierce critic of Israel. Raman defended the decision as an effort to reach voters who might not encounter her through traditional media, while saying she disagrees with some of his views.

Again, the question is larger than one interview. Mayors choose where they appear. They choose whose platforms they legitimize with their presence. They choose which audiences they pursue and how aggressively they challenge rhetoric they consider objectionable. Those choices are part of leadership.

To be fair, Raman also made statements that deserve to be included in any serious assessment of the evening. She has condemned the October 7 Hamas attack. She told the Skirball audience that Jewish Angelenos must be able to worship, express themselves and be visibly Jewish without fear. She acknowledged that antisemitism can come from the political left and pledged to work harder to keep Jewish residents safe.

She has also demonstrated independence from DSA on some municipal and foreign-policy questions, despite the organization's support for her candidacy.

Those facts matter. But they do not erase the harder questions raised by her own words.

Los Angeles' mayor does not control American foreign policy. City Hall will not determine what happens in Gaza, negotiate peace in the Middle East or set America's relationship with Israel. But the mayor absolutely helps establish the civic and moral tone of Los Angeles.

That matters in a city where Jews, Muslims, Palestinians, Israelis, Armenians, Persians and countless other communities live alongside one another while carrying histories and conflicts that stretch far beyond Southern California. A mayor's language can calm a divided city or deepen its divisions.

That is why what happened at the Skirball cannot simply be dismissed as a disagreement over foreign policy. It was a test of how a candidate for mayor responds when confronted directly by a community troubled by her previous words and political associations.

Raman did not dodge the questions. She answered them. And those answers are now part of the record voters can examine.

There was also a striking contrast from the same evening. When Mayor Karen Bass was asked whether she believed Israel's actions in Gaza constituted genocide, she answered no.

That does not settle the international legal debate over Gaza. Governments, scholars, international organizations and human-rights groups sharply disagree over the genocide accusation, and Israel rejects it. But politically, the contrast between the two candidates could hardly have been clearer: Bass said no. Raman defended saying yes.

On BDS, Bass said she opposed efforts to sanction Israel. Raman defended BDS as a legitimate form of peaceful protest while saying it was not part of her campaign platform.

Those are substantive differences, and voters are entitled to understand them without euphemism.

Raman wants Jewish Angelenos to trust that she will protect them. Her promises deserve to be heard. So do her words.

Trust in public life is not created by campaign outreach, synagogue visits or carefully prepared assurances alone. It is built through consistency, judgment and a willingness to explain difficult positions when the audience in front of you strongly disagrees.

That is ultimately why the Skirball forum mattered. It stripped away campaign slogans and put difficult questions directly in front of someone seeking executive leadership of Los Angeles.

Nithya Raman gave her answers.

Jewish Los Angeles and the rest of the city should pay close attention to exactly what those answers were.

(Avrohom Moshe is a California-based civic affairs writer and public policy analyst focused on government accountability, fiscal responsibility, and public safety. He also writes on issues affecting the Jewish community, including combating antisemitism and advancing civic engagement.)