The Jewish world must stop talking in the Diaspora dialect of therapy-speak. The phrase “Globalize the Intifada” does not “make you feel unsafe.” You do not “interpret” the line “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” differently from the way its speaker “interprets” it. And wherever possible, try to avoid structuring your sentences in the following way: “when you say X, I hear Y.”
So while Jewish Insider has done a massive service by getting New York Democrats on record about whether “Globalize the Intifada’s” growing body count has lessened their comfort with the phrase, I can’t say I’m particularly encouraged by the results.
The intifada is a specific historical event being referenced. “Globalize the Holomodor” would not be given the benefit of the doubt, and the same applies here.
Which is why the article at least ends on a bright spot. Chuck Park, a progressive anti-AIPAC challenger to a pro-Israel House Democrat, had this to say:
“The swastika is no longer a Buddhist symbol of good fortune, right? The pointed white hood is no longer a Catholic symbol of penance. And in a very similar way, that phrase is not a call for the liberation of an oppressed people, and I think it has instilled and maybe even inspired dangerous attacks on Jewish people around the world.”
Sure, even that answer is arguably too charitable to Hamasniks, but Park is clearly willing to let reality correct his priors. The comparison to the swastika and the Klan hood is particularly appropriate: Nobody truly wonders what those symbols represent.
Unfortunately, Park is very much an exception.
Erik Bottcher, a city councilman and Democratic primary candidate for Jerry Nadler’s seat, said that after Bondi Beach, “we should also be honest that slogans like ‘globalize the intifada’ don’t advance justice, they escalate hostility and make Jewish communities feel targeted. Leaders should be lowering the temperature.”
It’s true that demanding that people murder random Jews doesn’t “advance justice,” but neither does it make Jewish communities feel targeted. It makes Jewish communities targeted. If Bottcher wins, he’ll have many Jewish constituents. He should staunchly oppose the murder of those constituents.
One of Bottcher’s several opponents in the primary, Alex Bores, gets much closer to the truth: “I have repeatedly condemned the use of the slogan ‘globalize the intifada.’ I believe that phrase, regardless of a specific speaker’s intent, has been tied inextricably to violent attacks, strikes fear in many New Yorkers and has no place in our city.”
Mostly solid statement but there is no confusion over the “intent” of someone who uses the phrase. Bondi Beach is the intent.
Of course, the candidates who are willing to at least consider the implications of the phrase are handling this better than those who stick their fingers in their ears. Several candidates simply declined to answer the question at all.
As did Zohran Mamdani. The article notes that Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch told the incoming mayor, who pointedly refuses to condemn the call for mass murder, that “anti-Zionist rhetoric” can threaten the safety of Jews in New York. When asked by CBS to respond, Mamdani said: “Rabbi Hirsch is entitled to his opinions.”
It’s just a gentlemen’s disagreement over whether incitement to violence is good or bad, you see.
Anti-Zionism is the defining organizing principle of Mamdani’s adult life, so he knows exactly what the phrase means, perhaps better than most. There is no one in the universe less deserving of the benefit of the doubt on this than Zohran Mamdani.
The focus of the Jewish community going forward must be to stop with the rhetoric about how incitement makes us feel, because the Mamdanis of the world—and they are legion—will exploit any cracks in the consensus. And that only enables the terrorists who, I assure you, aren’t thinking about anybody’s feelings. No more handing excuses to those who openly seek our harm.
