Mayor Bloomberg said yesterday that his support for the U.N.’s plans to renovate and expand its offices is not diminished because of Secretary-General Annan’s decision to stop on the way to a Holocaust commemoration in Israel and lay a wreath at Yasser Arafat’s grave.

Mr. Bloomberg is recently returned from Jerusalem, where he was President Bush’s representative at a ceremony marking the opening of the Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial’s new museum. Several world leaders, including Mr. Annan, also attended the event; Mr. Annan, however, expanded his itinerary to lay a wreath at the grave of the late terrorist leader.

Mr. Annan’s decision to honor Arafat the day before visiting the Holocaust memorial sparked outrage among many New Yorkers, including one of Mr. Bloomberg’s rivals, Democratic mayoral candidate Anthony Weiner, a congressman representing parts of Brooklyn and Queens. Mr. Weiner and other political figures said Mr. Annan’s actions would likely harm the U.N.’s ambitions for expanding its Turtle Bay headquarters, including plans to erect a 35-story building atop a neighboring city park.

Mr. Bloomberg, an ardent ally of the U.N.’s expansion campaign, told The New York Sun on Thursday that, concerning Mr. Annan’s wreath-laying, “I would not have done it. … I’ve always thought that Yasser Arafat was a terrorist.”

Yesterday, however, when asked whether the secretary-general’s decision to honor Arafat affected his position on the U.N. and its construction project, the mayor responded: “No. Diplomacy is a very important part of our economy.”

Pledging to do whatever it takes to accommodate the U.N. and other diplomats in New York, Mr. Bloomberg said it would be “a disaster if the diplomatic corps moved some offices out of the city.”

Supporters of the U.N. project have argued that if the world body is not permitted to renovate and expand its facilities in Turtle Bay, it will be forced to relocate – possibly to Western European cities already housing U.N. offices – thereby depriving the city of revenue generated by the diplomatic industry.

In fact, New Yorkers “need to have more diplomats here,” the mayor said, adding that it is better to have world leaders talking about matters like Arafat and Israel in New York “than to have them talk about it and do it elsewhere.”

Mr. Bloomberg’s pledges to the U.N. came hours after his weekly radio address, in which he spoke of his trip to Israel, where he met with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom, and the mayor of Jerusalem, Uri Lupolianski. To them, Mr. Bloomberg said, he expressed “the admiration that the people of our city feel for the courage with which Israelis live their lives despite the constant threat of terrorism that they face.”

Mr. Bloomberg also spoke of Yad Vashem, and the importance of preserving the memory of the Holocaust. “That’s essential both to stop the anti-Semitism that is once again on the rise in parts of the world, and also to promote an understanding that hatred directed at any group ultimately threatens the safety and freedom of all of us,” the mayor said.

To some, however, the United Nations is the nexus of the anti-Semitism and anti-Israel terrorism Mr. Bloomberg denounced. So expressing solidarity with both besieged Israelis and the United Nations sends mixed messages, said Assemblyman Dov Hikind, Democrat of Brooklyn, who has opposed the U.N.’s expansion and suggested that the world body relocate to Mozambique.

Mr. Hikind, too, has just returned from Israel, where he led 40 New Yorkers on a solidarity mission to Gaza to visit with embattled settlers. The son of Holocaust survivors, Mr. Hikind labeled Mr. Annan’s tribute to Arafat “insulting,” “degrading,” and “one of the most obscene, disgusting things to happen in a long time.”

Mr. Hikind also questioned Mr. Bloomberg’s arguments about the importance of the U.N. and the diplomatic community to New York. “I don’t think we need more diplomats,” the assemblyman said. “The issue that the city will go under if the U.N. isn’t here is totally ridiculous.” If the U.N. were to leave, Mr. Hikind said, “I think we’ll all gain something – it would be a wonderful message to get rid of this organization that represents a lot of miserable things in the world.”

“The principle of what this organization represents – which is evil – is more important than looking at the economic benefits,” Mr. Hikind added. He cited the example of Mr. Bloomberg’s predecessor, Rudolph Giuliani, who turned down a $10 million gift from Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal after the prince said America’s Middle East policy prompted the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. “Rudy Giuliani did the right thing; he told them to go to hell. He didn’t do what was economically good and smart, he did what was right on principle. That’s the kind of thing we need to be doing these days.”

A member of Mr. Bloomberg’s delegation to Israel, City Council member Simcha Felder, Democrat of Brooklyn, was similarly unimpressed by Mr. Annan’s actions and by claims that the U.N. deserves the city’s assistance.

“To help the U.N. in any way is an averah – it is a sin,” Mr. Felder said, using the Hebrew word for offenses against God. “This abhorrent act by Kofi Annan should just give strength to those that are fighting against the U.N., and should knock others a little bit in the head and say ‘Wake up and smell the Kofi!’ ” Mr. Felder, who has introduced legislation in the City Council calling for the city to withhold assistance to the United Nations, said that 90% of his constituents support his position. “It’s not a Jewish thing, it’s not an American thing,” Mr. Felder said. Opposing the U.N., he added, is an issue for “anyone who stands for democracy.”

Another City Council member, Charles Barron, a Democrat of Brooklyn, has introduced opposing legislation that calls on the city to support the U.N.’s expansion plans. Mr. Barron came to Mr. Bloomberg’s defense yesterday, saying of Mr. Annan’s wreath-laying and the U.N.’s expansion: “I agree with the mayor that they’re separate events, and should not be connected to each other whatsoever.”

Mr. Barron dismissed much of the outcry over the U.N., and attributed it to racism. “Now that nations of color are having more and more influence, all of a sudden it’s being criticized,” he said. “When Kurt Waldheim was secretary-general, everything was fine. … As soon as we have Boutros Boutros-Ghali, and Kofi Annan, and secretary-generals of color, and more nations having more influence from Africa, and the Caribbean, all of a sudden it’s a cesspool now, a supporter of terrorism, and all this other nonsense.”