Latest news with #intifada
Wall Street Journal
5 hours ago
- Politics
- Wall Street Journal
Does Mamdani Know What ‘Intifada' Is?
Jerusalem Zohran Mamdani, the self-described democratic socialist who could win Tuesday's Democratic mayoral primary in New York, showed his true colors last week. In a podcast interview he claimed the phrase 'globalize the intifada' isn't a call for violence against Jews but expresses a desire for Palestinian 'equality and human rights.'
Fox News
12 hours ago
- Politics
- Fox News
We can't ignore the danger from those who want to ‘globalize the intifada.' We need to take action
Americans are now used to hearing chants of "globalize the intifada" in American cities and campuses. It has become so normalized that even a leading mayoral candidate in New York City feels comfortable downplaying the phrase as an expression of "a desperate desire for equality and equal rights." That is jarring enough. But as evidence mounts of an actual intifada – an anti-Israel, Jew-hating terror campaign, waged on our shores – it is past time to take those demonstrations, and their rhetoric, seriously. A movement that foments attacks against Jews and Israel-supporters is not a harmless expression of solidarity with Gaza. Yet, many Americans contextualize anti-Jewish violence within the framework of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and, in particular, Israel's war on Hamas. That misses the point. There is a contingent of people in this country who despise Jews and Israel, seek to destroy both, and were simply waiting for an excuse to act on their hatred. Israelis know what an intifada really means, because they lived it, twice. It was when every cafe, bus and nightclub in Israel was made a target for gruesome attacks against civilians. Now, Americans are learning what it looks like when "globalized." Pennsylvania Democrat Governor Josh Shapiro had to evacuate his family in the middle of the night on Passover because an anti-Israel lunatic firebombed his house, ranting about the governor's support for Israel. In Washington, DC, in May, a radical activist chanting "Free Palestine" allegedly executed two Israeli embassy staffers leaving an American Jewish Committee event. Most recently, in Boulder, Colo., a foreign national who has been living here illegally since 2023 launched a fiery attack on demonstrators who were calling for the release of the hostages being held by Hamas. The attacker told investigators "he wanted to kill all Zionist people and wished they were all dead" and that he had researched and planned the attack for more than a year, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office. Rather than raise a national conversation about the violent anti-Israel, Jew-hating movement, these incidents disappear into broader discussions of "antisemitism and Islamophobia" rising due to the war in Gaza. It's as if violence against American Jews is some kind of natural outcome of Israel's quest to free the hostages Hamas holds in brutal conditions and destroy Hamas, a terror group bent on destroying Israel. As a former envoy to the Middle East, I know the difference between a genuine peace movement and one that merely serves as a cover for chaos, violence and murder. But it doesn't take an expert to see which one the globalized intifada is. Calls for "intifada" to "free Palestine from the river to the sea by any means necessary" were always incompatible with characterizing these as "anti-war," "pro-ceasefire" protests, or a movement for "Palestinian rights," peace or a so-called "two-state solution." The movement has never been about establishing a Palestinian state. It's about destroying Israel because, the movement's adherents fundamentally believe, Jews are not legitimate sovereigns in the land of Israel. The movement's ideology licenses its adherents to take extreme measures to destroy Israel, including targeting Jews and Israel supporters worldwide. Treating anti-Jewish attacks as unfortunate byproducts of geopolitical tensions reveals a dangerous misunderstanding of how antisemitism operates. Jew-hatred doesn't emerge from policy disagreements; it's an ancient prejudice that adapts to contemporary circumstances. Medieval Europeans blamed Jews for the plague. Twentieth-century fascists blamed them for economic collapse. Today's antisemites target Jews around the world because Israel exists. The global intifada is just a rebranded version of a very old hatred. And it's not just a Jewish problem. The global intifada does not care who it harms in its quest. One way we can contain the problem is by keeping the intifada out. Some international students and some immigrants who were indoctrinated to hate Jews and Israel have imported intolerable bigotry. President Donald Trump deserves credit for having highlighted this issue long ago, recognizing that violent individuals crossing our borders pose a threat to our country, Jews and non-Jews alike. As a former envoy to the Middle East, I know the difference between a genuine peace movement and one that merely serves as a cover for chaos, violence and murder. But of late, the threat to Jews has become very significant. It's alarming that these terrorists got as far as they did, and it is highly likely that there are more radicals just like them biding their time. Effective anti-intifada strategy requires deporting aliens who support violence – and keeping them out in the first place. Hopefully by now we clearly see the danger. Anti-Jewish violence – even when cloaked as "anti-Zionist" – is not political discourse. Calling to "globalize" a campaign of civilian murder and mayhem is not part of a political debate. Targeting individuals with violence due to who they are or what they believe is a violation of every principle we hold sacred. Those who chant "globalize the intifada" have told us exactly who they are and what they intend — it's time we paid attention and connected the dots.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Deep divisions in NYC over Israel and Gaza prove thorny political ground for Cuomo, Mamdani
Zohran Mamdani stepped into a simmering political quagmire earlier this week when he was asked on a podcast about a term seen as deeply offensive by many Jews — the word 'intifada.' Mamdani explained during the interview with The Bulwark Tuesday that pro-Palestine protest chants like 'globalize the intifada,' to him signify a call for Palestinian human rights. He noted the word has been used by the U.S. Holocaust Museum when translating into Arabic the history of a Jewish uprising against the Nazis. It might seem a perplexing position: For decades, anyone with hopes of leading New York City, which has the largest Jewish population outside of Israel, has seen strong support of Israel as a given. But the ground has shifted in the wake of the Oct. 7 terror attacks by Hamas and Israel's subsequent military campaign in Gaza, particularly among younger voters. New York is sharply divided on the issue. The Democratic primary comes as antisemitic hate crimes have surged in New York City, outrage runs high over the killings of Palestinians in Gaza and the Trump administration is pulling funding from universities, claiming antisemitism concerns. Cuomo struck back at Mamdani on Wednesday, slamming him for saying the word intifada was 'subject to interpretation,' and the former governor has continued to hammer the issue. 'At a time when we are seeing antisemitism on the rise and in fact witnessing once again violence against Jews resulting in their deaths in Washington D.C. or their burning in Denver – we know all too well that words matter. 'They fuel hate,' Cuomo said in a statement. 'They fuel murder.' Mamdani, who would be the city's first Muslim mayor and was born in Uganda, said Wednesday that he feels 'an obligation to speak out against violence and against bad faith or misinformed efforts to manipulate language in ways that only contribute to the division we're seeking to overcome.' He's also spoken out about death threats amid an NYPD hate crimes investigation into allegations that a man threatened to blow up his car. Amid the deep division and latest flare up, though, more classic local issues such as political experience and the affordability of living in the city have by and large received more air time from candidates than the conflict in the Middle East. Cuomo has generally focused more on Mamdani's age and relative lack of experience. Meanwhile Mamdani has aimed his attacks on Cuomo's donor base for overlap with Trump supporters and slammed the ex-governor as part of a broken political machine that care little about working New Yorkers. The divisions over Israel and Gaza are unquestionably intense. The conflict has emerged as a classic wedge issue with the potential to drive turnout among the candidates' respective bases. At the same time, New Yorkers largely have such deeply held and sharply divided opinions on the question that it is tough for candidates to change minds. 'You can't win on Israel anymore,' said Hank Sheinkopf, a longtime pro-Israel Democratic strategist, who firm has done consulting work for a PAC in opposition to Mamdani. 'But you can win on experience, and you can win on policies that don't stand.' Over the last 18 months, large demonstrations on both sides of the issue have gripped New York. Hate crimes have surged. Support for Palestine has been particularly strong among younger, more progressive voters. Many establishment Democrats continue to voice strong support for Israel, including Reps. Chuck Schumer and Ritchie Torres in Washington, D.C., as well as Cuomo and Mayor Adams locally. Mamdani has taken a different approach. He has voiced strong support for the Palestinians in Gaza and sharp criticism of Israel's military efforts. He has used the term 'genocide' to describe Israel's actions — a term many find offensive. That approach comes amid a changing political landscape. A national Quinnipiac poll released last week found that an all-time high percentage of voters expressed that their sympathies lay more with Palestinians than Israelis, with 37% saying they supported Israelis more and 32% saying Palestinians. Among Democrats, just 12% said their sympathies lay with Israelis, with 60% saying they sided with Palestinians. Locally, a recent Emerson poll found that 46% of poll takers did not think it was important that the next mayor have a pro-Israel stance, compared to 33% who believed it important they do. Polls show a tightening race between the frontrunner Cuomo and Mamdani with just days before voting closes. Other candidates, including Comptroller Brad Lander, who's consistently polling in third and is seeing a boost in momentum following his arrest, are looking to break in amid high voter turnout. Over 212,00 have already cast their ballots in early voting as of Friday morning. In the final days, a super PAC backing Cuomo is sending mailers, airing TV advertisements and expanding their ground game, criticizing Mamdani's proposal to raise taxes on the wealthiest city residents to fund free buses and childcare. Mamdani, for his part, is painting Cuomo as part of the same old political establishment that has ignored the concerns of working people for years. Israel and Gaza are unquestionably critical to many voters, but that doesn't mean that — at this point in the game — they provide the best opportunity for candidates to win over undecided voters or flip those who've already made a decision, experts say. Bread and butter issues like affordability, housing and public safety will likely take take center stage in this race as Election Day nears, Democratic strategist Trip Yang told the Daily News. 'Certain communities and certain constituencies and certain activists certainly care about this a lot,' he said, 'but it's not the main factor citywide.' With Chris Sommerfeldt
Fox News
3 days ago
- Politics
- Fox News
'Globalize the intifada' phrase stirs tensions on NYC campaign trail as Middle East conflict rages
Middle East tensions seeped onto the New York City campaign trail this week as President Donald Trump considers striking Iran. When asked by The Bulwark podcast host, Tim Miller, if the phrases "Globalize the intifada" and "From the river to the sea" make him uncomfortable, mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani explained he doesn't support banning language, comparing that leadership style to Trump. "The very word has been used by the Holocaust Museum when translating the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising into Arabic, which is a word that means 'struggle.'" The clip has since gone viral, as Jewish advocacy groups and influencers slammed Mamdani for what they say is a refusal to condemn the phrase "Globalize the intifada," a rallying cry that has been used by pro-Palestinian protesters resisting the war in Gaza. "Exploiting the Museum and the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising to sanitize 'globalize the intifada' is outrageous and especially offensive to survivors. Since 1987, Jews have been attacked and murdered under its banner. All leaders must condemn its use and the abuse of history," the United States Holocaust Museum fired back at Mamdani in a social media post. According to the American Jewish Committee, the phrase "calls for people from around the globe to participate in rising up against Israel." Former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, widely considered the frontrunner in New York City's mayoral race, called on all candidates to "denounce" Mamdani's comments for claiming THE language is "subject to interpretation." "That is not only wrong, it is dangerous. At a time when we are seeing antisemitism on the rise and in fact witnessing once again violence against Jews resulting in their deaths in Washington D.C. or their burning in Denver, we know all too well that words matter. They fuel hate. They fuel murder. As the US Holocaust Museum so aptly said, all leaders or those running for office must condemn the use of this battle cry. There are no two sides here," Cuomo said. A young Jewish couple who worked at the Israeli Embassy were killed while leaving the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington last month. The suspect shouted, "Free Palestine!" while in police custody. Colorado police also responded to a terror attack at a pro-Israel event that left multiple people injured in Denver last month. Mamdani, who is vying to be New York City's first Muslim mayor, has been criticized by his competitors, including Cuomo, for his views on Middle East politics, which reached a boiling point this week amid ongoing strikes between Israel and Iran. During the mayoral debate, Mamdani said, "Israel has a right to exist," he but refused to agree that Israel has the right to exist as a "Jewish state" but rather "as a state with equal rights." New York Democrat Rep. Tom Suozzi, who has endorsed Cuomo, slammed Mamdani's comments, writing, "In Israel, the first and second intifadas, were terrorist attacks to kill Jews over a sustained period. 'Globalize the intifada' is not 'subject to interpretation,' it is wrong, dangerous and deadly. This is disqualifying and must be stopped." Another New York Democrat, Rep. Ritchie Torres, piled on the criticism, saying, "Even if we stipulate—for the sake of argument—that 'Globalize the Intifada' is not a call to violence (even though it clearly is), what matters is not the speaker's intent but how the phrase is received by many in the Jewish community." An emotional Mamdani addressed accusations that his comments were rooted in antisemitism during a press conference on Wednesday. "I get comments that say the only good Muslim is a dead Muslim. I get threats on my life, on the people that I love," Mamdani said, before adding, "Antisemitism is such a real issue in this city, and it has been hard to see it weaponized by candidates who do not seem to have any sincere interest in tackling it, but rather in using it as a pretext to make political points." Mamdani's campaign did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital's request for further comment.
New York Times
27-05-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
Two Estranged Friends on Their Fight for Mideast Peace. ‘We Were a Bit Naïve.'
It's hard to remember now, as Gazans eat grass to try to survive a siege, and as Israelis emboldened by the trauma of Oct. 7 seem poised to annex the West Bank, but there was a time when peace in the Middle East felt possible. In 2003, I moved to Washington to cover foreign policy and fell in with a group of friends — human rights lawyers, policy wonks and aides on Capitol Hill — who were pushing for a two-state solution. It had been 10 years since Israelis and Palestinians started down that path with an interim peace deal in Oslo. Palestinian frustrations had boiled over into the second intifada. But there was still a sense that a deal was possible. Two of our friends seemed to be living proof of that. Daniel Levy, the gregarious son of a British lord, and Ghaith al-Omari, a quiet Jordanian lawyer, were well known around town for having sat on opposite sides of a round of peace negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians in Taba, Egypt, in 2001. They had forged a friendship that became a symbol in Washington of the potential for peace. I once attended a dinner party where the host introduced them by announcing: 'If there is ever peace in the Middle East, it will be because of these two.' Recently, I wondered what those two old friends thought now about their attempt to help broker a deal. Had peace really been possible? Or had we been dreaming? Most of all, I wondered if they were still friends. So I called them up. I learned that their relationship had waxed and waned over the years, like the peace process itself. Then it took an unexpected turn. During the talks in Taba, Mr. Levy was an adviser to Yossi Beilin, the most dovish member of the Israeli negotiating team. Mr. Omari was an adviser to Yasir Abed Rabbo, the most dovish member of the Palestinian team. They got closer to a permanent deal than any previously, but stopped because of Israeli elections and did not resume. Still, Mr. Levy and Mr. Omari did not give up. Mr. Levy helped arrange for Mr. Omari and other peace negotiators to go together to South Africa and learn from the negotiators who had reached the deal that ended apartheid. Mr. Omari was impressed by Mr. Levy's generosity, and how he 'seemed to know everyone on earth.' 'He approached every disagreement as a challenge to overcome,' he told me during a recent interview. The admiration was mutual. Mr. Omari was 'whip-smart' and fun, Mr. Levy told me. He had the ability to look at the conflict dispassionately, perhaps because he was from Jordan, one step removed. They started meeting up for drinks at Mr. Omari's home in Jerusalem. They began to think of each other as friends. Then, in 2002, at the behest of their bosses, they holed up in an empty chalet in Switzerland and hammered out an unofficial blueprint for a permanent peace. That effort, known as the Geneva Initiative, aimed to preserve the progress that had been made at Taba. To get the support of Israelis, they proposed that Israel keep a small military presence in the newly created Palestinian state for a limited period of time. To get Palestinian backing, they detailed a formula for compensating Palestinian refugees who had been displaced in 1948, when Israel was established. In the end, they produced a hefty document that had the support of senior Palestine Liberation Organization officials, some Israeli opposition leaders, mayors and retired members of Israel's security establishment. Even a couple of leaders of an ultra-Orthodox party attended a ceremony marking the document's completion. The plan made such a splash that Ariel Sharon, who had been elected prime minister of Israel in 2001, reportedly cited it as one reason he felt compelled to propose an initiative of his own: withdrawal from Gaza. Mr. Sharon struck a deal with Washington, agreeing to pull out of Gaza in exchange for a promise that Israel could keep some large settlement blocs in the West Bank, his top aide Dov Weissglas told the newspaper Haaretz. The aim, he said, was to stop the peace process and 'prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state.' Still, Mr. Levy and Mr. Omari pressed on. They brought the Geneva Initiative to the attention of the highest echelons of the U.S. government and to ordinary Americans alike. Eventually they both moved to Washington, living a few doors down from one another. 'What was unique about them was that they were willing to challenge their own side,' recalled Rebecca Abou-Chedid, who then worked on staff at the Arab American Institute and once took the two men to Iowa to talk to American voters. Mr. Levy never shied away from acknowledging the failures of the Israelis, and Mr. Omari did not mince words about the Palestinian Authority's missteps. But the very traits that made them good peace negotiators — the ability to admit fault and see things from the other's point of view — made them outliers in their own communities. As the years went by, Hamas took over Gaza and the far-right came to power in Israel. The peace camp shrank and splintered. Mr. Levy and Mr. Omari dealt with the failure of their life's work differently. And in a sense, they switched sides. 'We learned very different lessons,' Mr. Omari told me. From the vantage point of middle age, Mr. Levy, now the London-based president of the U.S./Middle East Project, a think tank, has come to believe that Israel was never going to allow a Palestinian state. The Oslo Accords front-loaded the things that Israel wanted — greater international recognition and the creation of a Palestinian Authority that was obliged to do Israel's bidding and crack down on militants, he said. But the things Palestinians wanted — statehood, an end to the occupation and a halt to the confiscation of their land — were postponed indefinitely, contingent on a final deal that never came. Without a timetable for statehood, the Palestinian Authority lost all legitimacy and became a 'subcontractor for Israeli oppression,' Mr. Levy told me. 'That's what we were creating: a Palestinian collaborator class.' He has little patience for those who cling to a two-state solution as a substitute for confronting the unbearable situation in the West Bank and Gaza today, which he considers to be a genocide. He blames himself for ever believing in it. 'A more mature me would have understood Oslo,' he said. The only hope Mr. Levy sees now is in the new generation of activists who see Oslo for the expired, failed agreement that it is. They must find a new way to struggle against inequality inside a one-state reality, he said, adding that Palestinians must be allowed to choose their own structures to replace the discredited Palestinian Authority. Mr. Omari sees things differently. 'We were a bit naïve,' he told me recently in his office at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, another think tank. 'But I don't think we were completely naïve.' Oslo could have worked, he said. Geneva could have worked. He hasn't given up on a two-state solution. But he acknowledges that after the Oct. 7 attacks and Israel's relentless reprisals, it will take time before Israelis and Palestinians can sit down to talk peace, and even longer to process the damage that has been done. He is also haunted by his own failures, and the failures of the Palestinian leaders he once worked for. 'It was our failure that Hamas took over Gaza,' he said, citing corruption and poor governance. 'You can never build a paradise under occupation, but you could build something better.' He worries now that the world will simply move on. Despite the ongoing horror unfolding in both Gaza and the West Bank, the plight of Palestinians is slipping off the front pages. The 'total victory' that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel is promising over Hamas spells subjugation, annexation and possibly mass expulsion. In a world where big powers no longer even pay lip service to international law, Mr. Netanyahu just might get away with it. Plenty of other peoples who deserved their own state never got one, Mr. Omari said. The hope Mr. Omari sees is in those brief moments when he and Mr. Levy felt so tantalizingly close to a deal. It's worth remembering that feeling, he told me, even if just to mourn it. The last time Mr. Omari met Mr. Levy, several years ago, they embraced as old friends. They chatted about their wives and kids. Then the conversation turned to politics. Mr. Levy voiced his frustration about Mr. Omari's continued willingness to cooperate with people who advance Israel's agenda. They haven't spoken since, but their mutual affection remains. 'For all the disagreements on policy, I would still be super happy to see him,' Mr. Omari said. Mr. Levy told me, 'I never want to have cross words with him.' Their unwillingness to disparage one another struck me. That remnant of friendship and shared humanity is all that's left of our dreams of peace. That's what I'm going to hold on to.
