New York democratic socialist mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani 'globalize the intifada' ?

"Veteran Democratic strategist James Carville blasted New York democratic socialist mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani’s refusal to condemn the phrase "globalize the intifada," which is associated with violence against Israel.

According to the American Jewish Committee, the phrase "calls for people from around the globe to participate in rising up against Israel." The Second Intifada against Israel in the early 2000s was marked by Palestinian terrorism, including suicide bombings against civilian Israelis."

 

You're at least two weeks late on this particular bit of manufactured controversy. He has repeatedly denounced violence and stated it isn't a phrase he uses. Also, the "intifada" those that do use it are referencing is the largely non-violent First Intifada.

 

Former Rep. Dean Phillips (D-Minn.) says New York City mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani is a “grave threat” to Democrats across the U.S.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/dean-phillips-mamdani-grave-threat-161732537.html
“Mamdani, as you have referenced just moments ago, is a grave threat to Democrats around the country. He could be the mayor of New York,” Phillips told CNN’s Omar Jimenez on “Laura Coates Live.”

 

Mamdani has framed his position as solidarity with oppressed peoples, critics argue he’s crossing a line from advocacy into endorsement of extremism.

This is what Critics say:
Intifada is Terrorism Under Another Name
In some cases, “global intifada” is code for transnational jihad or terrorist campaigns against the West, Israel, and Jews—justified by selective and misleading historical grievances.

First Intifada (1987–1993)
A largely grassroots Palestinian Terror uprising against Israeli liberation in the West Bank and Gaza. It included protests, boycotts, and violent confrontations.
Second Intifada (2000–2005)
A far more violent uprising, involving suicide bombings, shootings, and Israeli military operations. It caused thousands of deaths on both sides, especially civilians.
A "global intifada" implies spreading that same ideology or methods of violent uprising to a worldwide scale, often used in radical or extremist rhetoric.

• Glorification of Violence
  A global intifada is not just about protest—it often includes promoting violent resistance, including terror attacks. That can normalize violence against civilians globally.

• Targeting Jews and Israelis Abroad
  In practice, calls for global intifada often morph into calls for violence against Jews—not just Israelis. This fuels global antisemitism, putting Jews everywhere at risk.

• Destabilizing Societies
  Uprisings built on hate rhetoric or extremist ideologies can destabilize multicultural societies. Peaceful protest is one thing—coordinated violent rebellion is another.

• Hijacking Legitimate Grievances
  The suffering of Palestinians is real even if it's more because of their choices and the Arab countries than Israel, but calls for a global intifada often hijack their cause for broader extremist agendas (e.g., by Iran-backed groups, Islamists, or anti-globalist radicals).

 

Here's the video that Lerner is apparently talking about when he says, "Mamdani has framed his position as solidarity with oppressed peoples, critics argue he’s crossing a line from advocacy into endorsement of extremism."

Mamdani simply refuses to condemn the phrase. He said his concern is saying what language people should use or not use is not what he thinks he should be doing.

Lerner is definitely making false assertions that Mamdani endorsed extremism. Although Lerner uses the same stupid trick as Trump by trying to blame his words on others.

 

626894

Lerner us quoting Former Rep Dan Philips D -Min and other critics, from moderate Dems.

 

Nope, at least not in the article linked. The closes that article comes to that is,

quote:
“When Democrats elevate people like Mamdani — and look at him, I do not know him. I can’t — I’m not going to disparage him personally, but I can tell you, based on what I’ve read about his positions, his platform, you know, it’s nonsensical to believe that America is looking for democratic socialists around the country,” Phillips said.

 

Trump said a antisinetic slur a few days ago, but by all means attack Mumdani using faulty retoric.

Brown man scary, orange man good.

 

You nailed it!

 

No one is objecting to his ethnicity!

Why this particular candidate, and not another person of color? Because it’s not about skin color — it’s about political ideology and public positions.

Framing criticism of Zohran Mamdani as racial bias is a dishonest deflection.
No one is objecting to his ethnicity; they’re objecting to his public embrace or appearance support of slogans like "globalize the intifada", which many interpret as support for violent movements, not just abstract solidarity.

Concerns about Mamdani are substantive, not superficial. Many New Yorkers — including fellow Democrats — are openly worried that his agenda could push the city toward divisive, extremist politics. The criticism stems from what he says and supports, not what he looks like.

If you're upset about Trump, — criticize him.
But pointing at him doesn’t excuse or explain away the troubling rhetoric from others.
That’s not accountability; that’s whataboutism. Let’s debate the actual positions and statements, not hide behind race-based smokescreens.

Many New Yorkers have genuine concerns based on what they’ve seen happen in cities like London, where local politics in some areas have been influenced by radical ideologies under the banner of "solidarity." The fear isn’t about ethnicity — it’s about a political trajectory that could lead to increased polarization, antisemitism masked as activism, and sympathy for extremist rhetoric.

That’s why people are speaking out — not because Mamdani is “brown,” but because his words and affiliations raise red flags.
When someone echoes slogans like “globalize the intifada,” it’s entirely reasonable for voters to question whether their values align with the democratic principles and community cohesion they want to see in New York.

 

Phillips didn't say what you claimed he said. Period. You blaming your false statement on Phillips is exactly the same thing Trump does all the time.

Regarding the backhanded insult about race. It was supposed to be funny, at least from my point of view. It also points out your tendency to vilify Arab and Moslem people. I don't know much at all about this Mamdani fellow but your need to falsely accuse him of endorsing extremism is falling embarrassing flat, so far. Like I said I don't know him, maybe he does endorse extremism against Jews but so far you have failed miserably trying to show that.

 

My reply was:

You missed the "and other critics" - selective bias?

No, - Arab and Moslem people - its your bias or inability to make adistiction between what people stand for and their etnicity. I no longer use the word Muslim, I use for a reason Jihadi, because of what it represents, not necesarry a whole relegion, but the more radical elements and terrorists agenda.

 

So prove your lie then. You lied that Phillips AND others. You don’t know what “and” means. You just lied like you are lying now.

 

Using Jihad as a substitute for Muslim just further proved my point.

 

Accusations of lie, are noting more than damage control mode.
Readers know better, and see your manipulations.

Some rational

1. 
   
   1. The phrase “Globalize the Intifada” is widely understood to reference a violent campaign—especially in the context of the First and Second Intifadas, which included suicide bombings, shootings, and other attacks on civilians. It’s not a neutral slogan. It's been used in rallies where calls for violence and even the destruction of Israel have been made. That context cannot be ignored
   
   
   
   • Mamdani refused to condemn the phrase when given the chance. That’s not a “false assertion” or “blaming his words on others.” It’s a matter of public record. When asked directly about “globalizing the intifada,” he deflected and avoided any clear condemnation of violence. That’s troubling.
   • Intent matters, but so does responsibility. If you publicly embrace or excuse slogans tied to historical and ongoing violence, you don't get to wash your hands of the implications. Framing it as “solidarity with oppressed peoples” doesn’t make it any less dangerous if the solidarity includes endorsing violent resistance or eliminating an entire nation.
   • James Carville, hardly a right-wing figure, expressed deep concern about Mamdani's refusal to disavow the phrase. This isn't partisan spin—it’s a legitimate concern even within the Democratic Party.

So no, this isn’t some “stupid trick” or Trump-style misdirection. It's calling attention to a real issue: elected officials should not dance around language that glorifies or excuses political violence—especially when that violence targets civilians.

 

Stop manipulating, it's not what I'm saying. I specifically pointed to - Jihadi agenda - not a whole religion, but the more radical elements and terrorists agenda.
What you manipulate and possibly hide - only for people who don't know the difference, you proved the point -like those who try to blur and deceive the public.
I say, not every Muslim is adopting radical Jihadists agenda.
Be it Quiet or Political Jihad and or violent, it's all in action. And you know it.

 

Okay, I see. I misunderstood your comment. I am curious why you brought it up in this conversation though.

 

Something that is a subject of concern in my community who are majority Democrats, and it's in the news.

 

That is not endorsement of extremism against Jews. He just refused to condemn that stupid phrase I never heard of. He talked at length about antisemitism being bad and needing to be eliminated. Watch the video.

I guess you couldn’t find any quotes from Congressman Phillips. So it’s clear you weren’t being truthful. Also where did Carville say he endorsed extremism against Jews? You keep trying to change the subject.

 

Okay, so you are calling Muslim mayoral candidate Mumdani a Jihadist. He clearly isnt. Would you call Trump an antisemite for saying antisemitic slurs?