Gillibrand Condemns "Globalize the Intifada" But Won't Condemn Mamdani

Last night, I yet again took NYC Democratic mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani to task for his weasel words on "globalize the intifada".

In an interview with Al Sharpton on MSNBC, Mamdani claimed the "intent" of the term was disconnected from its impact. I disputed that notion:

What Mamdani is trying to do here is to claim that the term "globalize the intifada" is about the ending "Israeli occupation of Palestinian land" and that Jews are misunderstanding the intent of the language and to refrain from using it.

But the genie is out of the bottle and cannot be returned. The rabbi who told Mamdani about the bus bombings in Haifa and restaurant attacks in Jersualem can now tell him about the murder of six Jews by Palestinian gunmen at a bus stop in Jerusalem today. 

The gunmen who murdered those six Jews today surely want to globalize the intifada as much as the Hamas terrorists who killed Jews enjoying a music festival, the man who executed 2 Israeli embassy staff at the D.C. Capital Jewish Museum and the man who threw Molotov cocktails at Holocaust survivors in Boulder, Colorado. 

There is no gap between intent and effect. To globalize the intifada is about targeting Jews and Jewish institutions. I can add vandalizing a Jewish museum with red spray paint in Philadelphia, throwing red paint on a Jewish singer in Warsaw and red paint on Jews in Frankfurt in a vigil for the hostages. Mamdani should stop pretending otherwise.

It would seem that NY Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand is agreement up to a point. During a gathering with Jewish leaders in Brooklyn on Monday, Gillibrand had this to say about "globalize the intifada" according to The Forward:

“The nature of some of the rhetoric that comes out of various protests globally, various protests on college campuses, is so damaging,” Gillibrand said in a seven-minute monologue when asked to address Jewish concerns over a potential Mamdani mayoralty and perceived waning support for Israel among Democratic politicians. “When they say words like ‘river to the sea,’ when they say words like ‘globalize the intifada,’ it means end Israel. It means destroy Jews.”

“No matter what words they intend to be saying, that is the meaning of these simple phrases,” she continued. “Having suffered through two intifadas, Israelis know how deadly an intifada is. It’s terrorism. It’s not a social movement. It’s terrorism, it’s destruction, it’s death.”

I agree with Gillibrand wholeheartedly concerning the above. However, when Gillibrand was pressed by an unidentified leader of the Orthodox Jewish community to oppose Mamdani, she would not do so. 

Mind you, Gillibrand has not endorsed Mamdani. While Gillibrand may oppose the term "globalize the intifada" she cannot bring herself to publicly oppose the man who uttered it. No doubt Gillibrand is reluctant to publicly criticize Mamdani after she was compelled to publicly apologize to him back in July after she erroneously claimed he had spoken of "global jihad" rather than "globalize the intifada". 

However, from where I sit, it is a distinction without difference. Ending Israel and killing Jews is every bit as much part of a global jihad as it is part of a call to globalize the intifada. 

Notwithstanding Gillibrand's apology, she has more than enough space to criticize Mamdani. After all, she was elected to her third term in the Senate only last year. Gillibrand is not subject to re-election until 2030 assuming she would seek another term. The fact that she will rightly condemn "globalize the intifada" without condemning the man who promoted "globalize the intifada" is deeply troubling.